text:
Transit train wreck: Here's how to do buses right
Last of three parts
Part 1: Ridership today and the suggested Sound Transit sales tax increase.
Part 2: Real riders speak, and Sound Transit's model isn't what they want to buy.
Part 3: The must-do agenda for transit and smart growth.
Public transportation in metropolitan Puget Sound today achieves something like 540,000 boardings a day. That's with a narrow definition that doesn't include vanpools or special handicapped or elderly transportation, or getting kids to and from school on school buses, or ride-sharing, or private shuttle vans to the airport, all of which it should. It also leaves aside walking and the bicycle, the healthy, low-fat transportation alternatives.
All these things can contribute more to the transportation task. But to keep it very simple, we'll concentrate here just on so-called "fixed route" transit systems.
Even though the daily boardings seem like a big number, transit's role in the overall daily job of personal transportation is pretty modest. It has a long way to go to play the role it should in an end-of-cheap-oil world. Yet our regional transit network is strong compared to most other places. We have dedicated funding from the slice of the sales tax that goes to transit. Voters will approve more if they see a sensible plan.
Transportation is on the threshold of dramatic changes as we lament the lost luxury of cheap oil and worry about the future. Things need to be different. That includes cars that run on renewable energy and more efficient roads to continue to carry freight as well as a lot of daily personal trips for many people. Changes at the margins of accustomed ways of doing things, however, won't be enough. There needs to be a big shift of trips to shared-vehicle transit.
Transit also must play a key role in shaping and serving communities' growth in housing and jobs. We need compact, transportation-efficient communities that are both desirable — people's first choice — and affordable to people who today are all too literally driven to live in distant and sprawling residential areas. Social engineering is a bad idea for pushing change. Good transit is a good idea. We need to put our energies into the good idea.
Set a goal, take names, and kick butt
Progress must be made with urgency, and it can be if we set a goal and fix accountability for performance. Today, the overall system of transit in the region has no such goal and no effective accountability for an overall program of change.
It's not even clear that King County Metro, Pierce Transit, Community Transit, and Sound Transit are seen by one another, let alone by anybody else, as custodians, together, of a single system working toward a single goal and vision for transportation in the region.
Let's first take the entrepreneurial step of setting a goal. The winds of change will be pushing in the right direction, so let's make the most of our opportunity.
Here a goal: A million total daily transit boardings in the region within five years — 2013.
That's a far more ambitious and useful call to action than embracing the hope of seeing 120,000 new daily riders on Sound Transit's sub-system midway through our children's lifetimes in 2030! It's more in line with Community Transit's announced intention of growing ridership by 50 percent by 2012. That's the spirit we need.
We should judge our plans and results against our ambitious goal and speak plain English to the public about how it will be done and what progress we achieve month by month and year by year.
Look to the future, not the past
It's an open secret that in transit circles and among transportation progressives there's not much enthusiasm outside Sound Transit itself for its current plan. Ask, "Why should we go with the Sound Transit plan?" The most common answer is this: "We've been trying to get this done for a long time and if we don't get it done, we'll never get anything done."
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 7:29 a.m.
That isn't happening.
Doug is getting some flack for waiting until AFTER his tenure in office to deliver this absolutely chilling analysis of the current situation. Two observations: First, he was an employee and charged with implementing policy, not shaping or creating it (although he got accused of both). Second, there is nothing more freeing to expression than being "out from under".
Fred Jarrett and I have been talking for years about dealing with transportation as a SYSTEM, instead of highly-fragmented modes. We talk about the need for a way to measure the MOBILITY OF PEOPLE AND GOODS (congestion isn't a good benchmark, unless one's government is centralized in a way we'll never attain) and ACCOUNTABILITY (who's in charge and accepts the consequences of failure to perform).
And, yeah, we're probably talking at a level of wonkishness that sends most of our colleagues into a coma. But in '07, following on the coattails of the Stanton/Rice work, we came up with a bill that would've started us down the road to a rational, systemic approach to transportation, using the existing vehicle of Puget Sound Regional Council and a bridging oversight group.
Following its own vision as "the regional think tank for research, analysis and development of strategic policy initiatives," establishing "the way the industry approaches the provision of public transportation services", Sound Transit immolated our bill. Doug's right ... we need such an entity, but ST's not it.
I'm sure that Will from HA! will move quickly to denouce me as anti-transit, but somehow, somehow, we've got to come clean and admit ... this isn't working. And having a federated, state-sanctioned agency free to spend tax dollars lobbying against progressive reforms that threaten its hegemony?
Hmmm ...
Rep. Deb Eddy, 48th LD
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 8:25 a.m.
Try putting an all-bus, no rail solution to the voters. I can see the speeches now, "Building smooth, spacious, reliable, air conditioned mass transit was a huge mistake, my friends. I promise to return Seattle to the days of buses jammed in traffic. We need to build least cost transit and that includes buses wrapped in advertising with no air conditioning. That is my promise to you."
Good luck with that Deb.
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 9:05 a.m.
I am much more interested in an open and honest public dialogue than in getting re-elected. Absolutely true. I weighed in here because I think we need to get beyond a roads-versus-transit argument that is now embarrassingly passe -- and ask how we get OPERATIONAL, EFFECTIVE transit in something less that 20 years. Trains, light rail and buses ALL must be included, as appropriate to the market/route/customer.
Doug has contributed usefully to that question by documenting here how shockingly LITTLE Sound Transit is proposing to contribute to the over-all goal (which could be stated as increasing transit use, reducing VMT, reducing our reliance of foreign oil, increasing multi-model mobility, reducing SOV reliance and saving us all money in a time of high gas prices -- all feed justification into the same general outcome).
That's the PUBLIC interest, Richard, those "people" you mention ... not protectionism of one mode of travel or one agency.
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 9:40 a.m.
In addition to the obvious efficiencies of scale and elimination of duplicated adminstrative staff and facilities, a combined regional transit service could also treat the region's transportation problems with solutions that don't suffer from turf wars and artificial boundaries -- for example, why not combine the Aurora corridor BRT services (RapidRide and Swift) into a single line, all the way from downtown to downtown, instead of splitting it at Aurora Village? Or place transit centers at the ferry docks in Seattle, Edmunds and Mukilteo? There are plenty of other possibilities.
If we assume that transit will never pay for itself from farebox revenue, it seems like efficient administration is not an option -- it's essential.
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 11:06 a.m.
If you and your allies in Olympia had the votes to gut Sound Transit, you'd do it. But I don't think you do. Sound Transit is chartered with advocating for more public transit, so it's lobbying on behalf of transit and even itself is no scandal. "Hegemony", indeed. Sound Transit has almost no friends in Oly, but somehow manages to evade attempts by the legislature to eviscerate it. I think that says more about you guys and less about them.
I wish you would be much more open about your opposition to light rail. You've got one foot in the Kemper Freeman/Doug MacDonald/Discovery Inst. area, and one foot in the "I'm not against transit" area.
I'd love to read your thoughts on the future of transportation in this region. Even in three parts!
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 11:17 a.m.
Carless Capitol Hill hipsters, Bainbridge ferry commuters and blind Monroe dial-a-ride users have different transit needs, and their local agencies are better at attending to them than a centralized bureaucracy would be.
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 11:53 a.m.
The advantage of rail proposals is that the public intuitively knows how it will work. We know of successful systems in places we have visited (New York, Chicago, DC, London, Paris). Offering me a new system that you claim works great in Bogota does not give me confidence in that system. I have great confidence that stops along a rail line will have shelter, I hold no such confidence in a bus plan. With rail, I envision a dedicated track for the train that has no possibility of being encroached upon by other traffic, say via a HOT lane.
You have an uphill clime with the public with the dream of a bus only solution to transit. Keep rail in the mix. Let us move forward with these options, build the test bus lines, but don't derail the rail system.
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 12:08 p.m.
MacDonald does take a while, but certainly reinforces what the many (not just a few old white men) skeptics have argued all along, that the extended RAIL component of Sound Transit just doesn't compute economically or geographically. It consumes far too much of future potential revenues for far too few new riders. It is not a plan for effective regional transportation, but rather an excuse to build trains, just for the sheer love of trains. I agree with other moderate commenters that a case can be made for the extension to Northgate, assuming that the link to the UW is built, but not for rail across the lake, which constitutes an ideal opportunity for BRT implementation and evaluation.
Just as MacDonald points out, most growth in population and in JOBS is not in or near the Seattle or Bellevue downtowns, or even in Seattle, despite all those construction cranes. It is everywhere, because that is the varied nature of the economy and of households. The real present and future metropolis must be served by an extensive high quality bus system, not a CBD oriented, high capacity rail lines that takes a high share of investment to deliver a small share of rides. This is the simple and obvious reason to be cautious about most rail extension proposals; they simply can't meet minimal cost-benefit analyses. High capacity with too few riders can't match moderate capacity (busses, carpools) with many riders.
Now a fair question, which David Brewster posed to me, is whether a rail line could CREATE supportive high density levels (such as exists, say, between downtown LA and Beverly Hills). Unfortunately the configuration and location of the corridtors, together with the difficult topography of the Seattle area, is not conducive to extended corridors of high density. Will Mercer Island accept 50000 folks near its station, or the Roosevelt area? Ironically the more plausible corridor for higher density is SR 99, from Tacoma to Everett, but it is populated by lower income folks, not us rich professionals.
It is truly refreshing to read such clear thinking, which deals with improving mobility for people and jobs in the real world. The Seattle region has a very high median level of education, but evidently of irrational fantasy as well. How else can we understand the true-believer obsession with rail, simply on faith, that would set back rather than advance a sustainable future.?
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 12:17 p.m.
Silly me, I thought our traffic experts actually wanted to help people get from here to there, based on individual choices and needs. But no, after my prize and a crash diet of traffic reading, I learned that the larger part of the traffic world exists to push its particular vision of society. Not just how we travel, but how we live, where we live, where we work, and so on. Yes, I get it that traffic is closely connected to our societal choices. But the end result seems to be a bunch of experts constantly at each others' throats, pushing plans for trains or roads or bikes or whatever.
These guys fight to the point that the particular plans themselves grow overaching and ideological. So much so that the plans unmoor from their primary reason for existing in the first place: allowing the most people to move about in the best ways for the least amount of public money.
The challenge isn't that tough. As Doug MacDonald lays out in this article series, it isn't hard to identify expensive plans that don't do much, and don't do the little they do do for a long time (per Sound Transit). It isn't hard to see what works in other places, and what's working here now. OK, the statistics of it all can be dull. But it's not rocket science.
So why is it so hard to get from here to there? I think we need more new ideas, more people who haven't tied their careers to one traffic ideology or another. We need more people like Doug MacDonald--a traffic outsider himself before he was appointed our Secretary of Transportation after a career in water--who simply look at the numbers to see what's working and what isn't.
Do we need to throw all the bums out and start afresh? Ban anyone who's ever worked in traffic in the past 20-30 years from futher involvement? Probably too simplistic a solution, but are we being well-served by our present public servants and well-paid consultants and so-called experts?
Or, as one of my political junky friend suggests, do we need a charismatic local leader to strongarm the crazy quilt of transit agencies into a common approach that benefits us all? (Doug, are you available?)
For, in the end, we are all in this together. If we screw up traffic with costly, ineffective investments now, all us (and all our children) will pay the price, for decades to come. Given the lasting impact, I don't understand why some continue to promote--almost to the death--demonstrably bad plans for the future. What's wrong with simply building on simple analysis of what works and what doesn't? It's too expensive and important to leave to ideology.
But then again, I'm just an outsider. Just like the majority of those stuck in traffic today. We deserve better than bitter political fights between bad plans for trains or roads.
And thank you Doug MacDonald for trying to help us, both in your days at WSDOT and in your capabity as a citizen now.
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 12:28 p.m.
Since 1999 King County has passed two bus only tax increases.
People paying to fill their cars with $4+ gas and eating more and more expensive food will be hard to be sold on a treatment (their are no solutions) bringing a few miles of rail in 10 to 20 years, that will aid maybe 5% of the people, while adding a big tax increase. The same taxes would increase bus service in the county by about 30%.
Regional governance needs to be elected and each of the major metro areas should have representation. Some agencies could remain and apply to the new PSRC for funding their pet projects.
If we stop building rail, how much money would be available without raising taxes for increased bus service?
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 12:31 p.m.
RE: ail needs to be part of the solution: All the cities you mention have a transit system based on in-city heavy rail.
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 12:42 p.m.
From reading this article, you would think that Sound Transit only builds and markets rail transit. That's just not true. While the fact that it is building what are new modes of transportation for the Puget Sound region - light rail and commuter rail- focuses public attention on those modes, ST has spent billions on bus service and major capital projects such as new park and rides and direct access ramps that are solely dedicated to improving travel times for bus commuters using existing HOV right-of-way.
Of course, buses, because they are already deployed throughout the region in hundreds of corridors and because they are flexible will always be a critical component of our transportation system in this region. But that's true in New York, London, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco and every other major metropolitan area with an extensive rail transit system. But I can guarantee you that the residents of those cities value their rail systems even more than their bus systems. Why? Because rail transit moves along dedicated ROW, is comfortable, dependable, drives better, smarter land-use practices around station areas and provides a kind of predictability of travel time and travel experience missing from traditional bus transit.
So, Doug's answer to this is instead of all that light rail and commuter rail stuff, we should in most cases be building out Bus Rapid Transit. Now, don't get me wrong, in many cases BRT is a good choice and we should generally be doing more of it in this area. And, as Doug points out, we are - the Swift Corridor, Metro's Rapid Ride and, yes, as he acknowledges, Sound Transit is pursuing BRT in its next plan on the 520 bridge. However, as even those experiences reveal, BRT is no panacea. An improvement? Yes, but not as good as light rail in most cases.
Look at the SR 99 corridor. Seattle, King County and Snohomish have spent years (10? 15? more?) converting existing pavement and building new pavement to give buses increasingly dedicated access to a lane in each direction of that corridor. Businesses along the corridor have fought back, neighborhoods have complained and buses will still be subject to traffic delays, traffic signals (albeit with some level of prioritization) and other interferences that will still make for a relatively long trip given the distances involved. Don't get me wrong, Swift and RapidRide will be big improvements, but they won't be as good or as popular as light rail. It's as, Doug essentially acknowledges, (not so) rapid transit on the cheap.
It is possible to get BRT with the dependability and speed of light rail, but that means dedicated right of way that's separated and protected from traffic. The best examples of that in this region are the downtown bus tunnel and the E-4 Bus Way that travels through SODO on what used to be 5th Ave. South. But, if you're going to all that trouble -and expense- to create new right-of-way with fast, dependable service, you might as well build light rail. Why? Because, it has all the speed and reliability of this kind of true BRT, but it also operates on smaller footprint, is more popular (it may be irrational, but it's true- people love trains), and more esthetically pleasing, and therefore more acceptable, to the communities that surround those transit corridors. Oh, and light rail also drives better land use investments than any kind of BRT, but more about that later.
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 12:50 p.m.
The cause, of course, is that people live in one place and work in another place (and shop in another place, to a lesser degree).
For example, a huge percentage of Tacoma residents work in Seattle. Why? Because Tacoma has great neighborhoods that are relatively affordable, but Seattle/Bellevue/Redmond/etc. has the lion's share of good jobs. Why doesn't Tacoma have enough good jobs? Well ... maybe there used to be a good reason for that, but not any more. Tacoma is a large, well-established city and it needs to better support the employment of its own residents.
So instead of building the billion-dollar light rail line from Tacoma to Seattle, let's encourage businesses to locate in Tacoma, and expand transit options within Tacoma. Then those commuters don't clog the roads and don't need transit.
Of course Tacoma isn't the only city in which this'll work, it's just the biggest. We really need to ask ourselves why we seem to have resigned ourselves to the "fact" that all the good jobs have to be in Seattle and a 5-mile radius around it. Perhaps if we gave incentives for companies to locate outside that area, they will, and our traffic headaches will be cured in a way that doeesn't involve any commuting.
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 1:41 p.m.
I have been a critic of Sound Transit largely because, a) I don't see how we can possibly build a complete, 150 mile or so light rail system, no matter how sexy it may seem, at well in excess of $300 million a mile -- we just don't have the money -- and because, b) with the now-proven HOT technology on freeways we can easily insure regional transit mobility throughout the entire metro Puget Sound when combined with arterial bus-only lanes. This was not the case in the Jim Ellis era. But time, and technology, marches on.
However, one reservation I have concerning some of my fellow critics is that they don't see the land-use / transit connection, which is the subject of this last article. So-called Transit Oriented Development (walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods) is essential for a whole host of reasons, not the least being amenity value. And with Bus Rapid Transit (on freeway HOT and arterial bus-only lanes) we can have TOD in hundreds of neighborhoods rather than the handful possible under Sound Transit's light rail fever-dream.
Even if you prefer light rail to BRT (an understandable preference), it is necessary to put all the pieces of the puzzle together. MacDonald's article has done just that. Good job. And let's hope the fever breaks soon.
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 2:04 p.m.
Doug, You have forgotten about Mr. Eyeman: What happens to Bus Rapid Transit if the Eyeman initiative to gut HOV and Hot Lanes passes this Fall. Guess it would be just more Bus Slow Transit.
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 2:23 p.m.
All levels of government have been struggling to find new metrics for some time. Just last year, someone raised the idea of "competition" among bus routes. How do we motivate the creation/service of transit routes that are of benefit to the most people? In this last installment, Doug suggests one possible measure: percentage INCREASE in ridership. Just that one idea should provoke some other new ideas.
As a former secretary of transportation with both brains and stature, Doug may be able to create sufficient attention to the situation - and the unattractive options out there right now - to help get the region out of its current rut.
Rep. Deb Eddy, 48th LD
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 3:06 p.m.
So, what happened? Have you changed your mind on the replacement vs the Retrofit solution? I hope so! If you haven't made that course correction on the Viaduct, then I can hardly support your visioning, since it would lead me to believe that you speak with a forked tongue. Please tell me Im wrong and that you now See the errors of your ways and support the Retrofitting of the historic Viaduct.
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 3:15 p.m.
I am still not convinced for two reasons.
1) Your basic argument is that a bus system can better serve the population because it is more flexible and a faster solution. There is no doubting that it is easier to add bus routes than light rail. As a person who has used all forms of mass transit from street cars in Europe to the subway in NYC, nothing compares to the comfort of trains. I don't really know why either. I just know that riding in a train is preferable to a car or bus. So I could understand if your position is that we should sacrifice the pleasure of trains for the expediency of a bus system, but I would disagree. I would prefer to make the long term investment in the better transit mode. Moreover, if the bus lines are so easy to install, let's install BRT to mimic where the light rail will go until the lines are built. I am sure there will be a city willing to buy our buses when we are done with them.
2) You use the ridership numbers a lot. As a data analyst, I wonder if there is not a qualitative difference between the 120,000 riders that light rail would add compared to the 500,000 current riders. My guess is that those added will travel far further and more regularly thus having a greater impact. There is also a huge potential for cities to support light rail with other modes of transit that will link light rail stations to people's homes and their other destinations, which would increase those numbers over time.
In general, I think it is sad that with all of the time, energy and money that has gone into arguing about what to do, there is very little effort to show in terms of a real understanding of the issue. Why is the fate of our land-use and transportation, the basis of our economy, not better understood?
I find it hard to believe that Sound Transit as an organization is pushing this plan to feed their collective ego. They must have a reason that they support light rail. We should be able to model the two transportation options and make a choice based on the economic factors that matter to the citizens where they be the environment, cost, mobility, comfort or expediency.
Personally, I am tired of this conversation being based in speculation and random statistics. And to the extent that this series failed to engage the work that Sound Transit has put into their plans, I find it counterproductive to conversation.
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 3:22 p.m.
Hey DEBO as long as you are here...: How about removing sales tax from Infrastructure Capital Projects like roads and bridges and schools? Next, please use your influence to have Bill Laborde removed from any boards, panels and commissions. Finally will you support a Bill to make any compact negotiations with tribes subject to Legislative review to avoid tha appearance of wrong doing we are currently enduring?
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 3:27 p.m.
I can't help but think that SOund Transit is a REGIONAL transit company. Their mission is to move people across jurisdictions. That seems to be why they focus on light rail. Buses seem to make more sense within a jurisdiction: to get you from the train to work/home.
The other obvious point that seems to be missing from the series is that we are going to have to build rail or more roads. So why not invest in the better mode and free up space on the road for cars instead of increasing the traffic with buses?
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 4:41 p.m.
Less than the bus-only folks would have you believe, actually. King County Metro alone is spending $550 million/year on the bus system. Sound Transit is spending about $4.1 billion on light rail from the U-District to the Airport, and about $1.3 billion of that is federal grant money that we presumably wouldn't have gotten if we weren't investing in infrastructure. So that's $2.8 billion of local money, or enough money to, say, run half-again our current buses system for 10 years. (Assuming we didn't need to build a bigger bus base to support the new buses, though of course we would need to spend hundreds of millions on that, given the land costs. Oh, and this would also be assuming running more buses wouldn't interfere with current buses in traffic, though of course they would.) And after 10 years, we'd be back where we are now.
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 4:45 p.m.
RE: Hey DEBO as long as you are here...: I'd be breaking the norms to go that far off-topic here, Cameron, but I'm always willing to engage in other policy conversations at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 5:12 p.m.
Your response to me points out a major problem with politics in this region. It's the notion that you can't be honest with the voters AND get re-elected. Why can't you explain to the public that light rail is such a bad idea and make a persuasive argument for that? There is so much mis- and dis-information out there about transit, the public as well as the elected officials, are too confused to even be able to make an informed decision.
There have been lots of commenters on this thread who have eloquently spoken about how rail is better in so many ways. It's more reliable, smoother, more spacious and just a better overall experience. Ignoring the huge differences in rider experience is simply ridiculous.
Plus, you're putting alot onto the shoulders of transit: "reducing VMT, reducing our reliance of foreign oil, increasing multi-model mobility, reducing SOV reliance."
These goals could all be accomplished by increasing gas prices, which, thanks to the corruption in the oil markets, is already happening. Just because you say it's related, doesn't mean it is.
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 7:43 p.m.
Light rail isn't a bad idea. I am PRO light rail, in addition to being PRO transit. The part that really, really worries me is this: the light rail proposal on the table right now, focused as it is on crossing I-90 from the International District to downtown Bellevue, absorbs an enormous amount of our overall revenue "capacity" (variously measured as what's currently authorized but including what I think the market will bear, long term). While absorbing all that money (to say nothing of TIME), it delivers very little transit ACCESS (MOBILITY).
You're right about mis- and dis-information. That's why many intelligent people turn tail and run from this issue. I successfully avoided it for the first 10 years of public service; possibly, I should've stayed with that position.
I threw out the various rationales (VMT, GHG) to illustrate how so many of our current issues all require that we get this transit thing RIGHT. The increase in gas prices will change the complexion of the solution, YES. But relying totally on market/pricing solutions will hurt a whole lot of people badly. Very badly. You probably wouldn't like that outcome any more than I would.
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 8:20 p.m.
At least as this statement applies to transit, it is inaccurate. BRT in this region can use HOV lanes converted to HOT status on the freeways, and the parking lanes on arterials as bus-only lanes (for the sake of merchants you would have to more than replace the lost on-street parking with lots or garages). Thus for the most part you do not need a new right of way except in places such as downtown Bellevue, where a first-class BRT system would require a dedicated right of way (as a starter perhaps something like the downtown Seattle 3rd Avenue dedicated bus street, with a transit tunnel to follow).
The fact that you mostly don't need a new right of way is what makes BRT cost a fraction of the dollars per mile comrared to light rail. Which in turn means that for the same budget you get perhaps ten times the high capacity transit miles.
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 8:22 p.m.
You write that East Link "absorbs an enormous amount of our overall revenue "capacity" (variously measured as what's currently authorized but including what I think the market will bear, long term). While absorbing all that money (to say nothing of TIME), it delivers very little transit ACCESS (MOBILITY)."
Can you define "very little"? East Link will deliver 14 (or more) miles of new right-of-way, able to move 45,000 riders per day, at a cost of $3 billion.
By point of comparison, the I-405 Master Plan adds capacity for 110,000 additional trips at a cost of nearly $11 billion (in 2002 dollars), and will take 20+ years to complete, according to WSDOT.
East Link sounds like a wise use of funds to me. How am I wrong?
Posted Wed, Jun 25, 10 p.m.
Let me grant these characteristics for a moment, despite the fact that some trains compared to some buses don't win on these points. [A few years ago, my 20-something nephew from Boston thought Seattle's bus tunnel provided a much smoother, better ride than Boston's center city subways, but I digress...]
Let's assume the Sound Transit trains have all the fine characteristics held up by Richard, and also let's assume that buses will shake, rattle, and lurch despite ride-smoothing improvements seen in high-tech buses deployed in Oregon and Cleveland.
So, I'm granting Richard's "huge differences in rider experience."
Instead, let's pose the contrast between trains and buses as a choice of public resource allocation, with each having somewhat different characteristics.
Given Rep. Eddy's point on limited public tolerance for higher taxes, it comes down a choice for covering the region with transit:
Plan A from Sound Transit: X miles of trains, with "a more reliable, smoother, more spacious, better overall experience" than buses can provide. (There, I said it again.)
[X miles above and Y new transit riders below are stated as variables because we don't know for sure yet what Sound Transit is planning!]
What else? Perhaps the trains will go where you need to go, but maybe not, since not all corridors are served. The cost will be very high, 20 times per mile higher than buses in capital expenditure to build a line, and no savings over buses in operational costs based on data from around the country. Railroads take many years to build, as Sound Transit has shown us. Y new transit riders will be attracted to transit for the first time when the trains finally get rolling.
Or, we can have Plan B: 100X miles of new and improved bus service, that will NOT be as reliable, smooth, spacious yada yada yada as a train, but because of some infrastructure, vehicle, and service design tweaks, it will be faster than the old bus service. (More frequency, fewer bus stops, faster boarding, turns red lights to green, etc, etc., www.gobrt.org)
This new buses will go to far more places than the A-train because roads carrying buses will go down all the major corridors. Because bus stops are in more places than train stations, door-to-door travel time for many people will be faster than going to a train station. The cost to the public in taxes won't be nearly as much per mile as building train tracks. The new kind of buses can be put into service in far fewer years than building light rail. 10Y new transit riders will be attracted to transit for the first time.
Which do you like better?
[I'm estimating 100 times more route coverage of the region by lower cost bus improvements compared to rail yields a 10 fold multiple in new transit ridership on buses compared to new train service.]
Doug MacDonald is making the case for Plan B. B for buses. A for trains.
Opponents of A are arguing B is better, but Sound Transit and fans of Plan A are very persistent, so A may be on the ballot this year, trying to double Sound Transit's sales tax rate a year before the first major light rail line is supposed to be put in service.
Unfortunately, Plan B is a hypothetical. Sound Transit's charter does not let the agency put out a bus-centric plan. Opponents of A have to wait for it to go away following more Prop-1 type defeats at the polls.
Or, perhaps Sound Transit will decide to hold for a few more years at its current $million$ per day in taxes, yielding public acceptance of investing in bus service expansion NOW.
Posted Thu, Jun 26, 12:52 a.m.
I doubt either MacDonald nor Representative Eddy are anti LRT, let alone anti transit. They are skeptical about the cost-effectiveness of the East Link LRT program. Could more transit ridership be attracted and better support to our environmental objectives be achieved with alternative transit investments? Yes. This should not be a faith based exercise.
Both MacDonald and Eddy probably support extending Link LRT to Northgate. That corridor has been studied for decades to be the highest ridership corridor. It will take ST a long time to recover from their bad decision in 2001 to build south first. The north line will connect several dense pedestrian oriented urban centers where bus transit goes slowly and where I-5 cannot be reconfigured to provide good transit right of way in the reverse peak direction.
Those conditions are not present in the East. The more than $2billion needed for east Link LRT could attract more ridership if spent on several BRT lines and service on the Woodinville subdivision. the latter is a right of way of opportunity. Most cities that have built modern LRT have used abandoned freight rail lines and not attempted to build their own (e.g., Denver, Vancouver, Sacremento, San Diego, Sacremento, St Louis). MacDonald suggests a network of BRT lines on SR-522, SR-520, I-90, etc. It is not a one for one comparison, but one v. several. East Link would improve Route 550 to LRT. It would be wonderful, but less wonderful than several BRT lines and expanded regional express bus lines. It would also degrade the translake trips of more riders on routes 111, 114, 212, 214, 216, 218, 225, 229, by kicking them off the I-90 center roadway and perhaps kicking them off the D-2 roadway between I-90 and the downtown Seattle surface streets. East Link would not use the I-90 center roadway very intensively. A large part of the east Link ridership is achieved by shifting Route 545 riders from SR-520 to Link. Why? Both the ST2 funds and the I-90 center roadway could be used better and more effectively. What is the delay with implementing R8A? ST could pay for it and the state could pay them back. Mercer Island residents will soon join all users is having to pay tolls to drive alone on the translake bridges.
A much better ST2 could be assembled. But I doubt the ST Board can do it this summer. As MacDonald suggests, they would need to embrase systemwide tolling of the limited access highway system and use all modes where they have comparitive advantage.
The transit future is one with tolling, global warming, higher ridership and farebox recovery. We need to focus good service on the places with walkable street grids, most of them were developed before WWII. The ST tax authority is scarce and should be well spent. We cannot afford to build new LRT rights of way for long distance trips that do not require that much transit capacity just because our long range plans say so. Affordability has to a factor. Better transit service is needed throughout the ST district. It need not be LRT everywhere.
Posted Thu, Jun 26, 8:06 a.m.
While East Link LRT may be forecast to serve 45,000 rides (not riders) a day sometime out beyond the end of the rainbow, the I-405 expansion adds 110,000 capacity AT EVERY POINT ALONG ITS 30-MILE LENGTH. (Theoretically, this could support 110,000 more daily trips just in the short stretch between Exit 1 and Exit 2.)
But extending this 110,000 added capacity along 405's entire length -and between all its entrances and exits- will enable a near *doubling* of its daily trips (from its current 800,000 level to 1.5 million daily trips) distributed across the entire facility.
Some of that traffic will travel between Exits 1 and 4, others between Exit 4 and 9, others between 9 and 27 and so on. Some will travel the whole distance.
So, the correct comparison is:
East Link LRT: $3 billion (plus interest) for 45,000 added daily trips
I-405 Expansion: $11 billion for 750,000 added daily trips
After LRT's borrowing costs are considered, the investment in 405 will cost maybe ~30% more, but will serve ~17 times the added travel demand.
Posted Thu, Jun 26, 8:35 a.m.
While I don't advocate thoughtlessness, how does this lead us to action? Congestion is not getting better, the cost of building anything (and every option requires building stuff) is getting more expensive, the time frame for doing anything is always longer than we think (even BRT will unless we deploy buses in the same lanes as traffic--not withstanding Doug's suggestion that they are faster and more flexible). We are running out of options as fast as the price of fuel is rising.
This forum is full of people who are self-described transit supporters,yet this incessant bikering over which mode or technology is "best", results in an astounding lack of transit--which we point to and yell "see their technology is not as good as ours". Transit is NOT one mode. It is a combination of modes (read:right technology for a given application) all working together to provide mobility.
Our elected officials and our regional planning leadership had better understand that there is an explosion of demand for transit just over the horizon and we cannot fumble around much longer. The Seattle Area has the nations largest gap between infrastructure needs and the funding (read:will) to pay for it. the City second on that list has a gap between needs and funding half the size of ours. That's a pretty daming indictment of the unwillingness to actually do something in only the 23rd largest city in America.
We have fiddled around until it is no longer a question of either or; now it is a matter of both, and. The only question is how do we make a logical deployment of both to meet demand now and in the future.
Should we have BRT, yes, if its done right and not just fancier buses (we haven't begun to consider that yet and it is more expensive than BRT proponents would have us beleive).
Should we have light rail, yes;
street car, yes;
water transit, yes.
Yes, yes, yes.
Posted Thu, Jun 26, 9:07 a.m.
The current funding structures were designed to support a 1960s sensibility. If people want and need transit, they'll support the taxing capacity to get the job done. That will surely include more light rail and more of the buses MacDonald advocates.
We need reforms to match the challenge, not a war between rail and buses.
Let's hope the legislature gets that next year.
One big reform would be for Olympia powers to wake up, break down the turf war funding silos, put people in the region in charge, and get the heck out of the way. To date, powerful state legislators, just as much as the Sound Transit lobby (the agency itself is not the prime force in the lobby), have ruined useful reforms by inisisting on same-old control of state purse strings and same-old restrictions on transit funding.
While much attention has focused on turfy earmarking in Congress, little attention is focused on how Olympia works when it comes to transportation, where far more transportation funding is controlled by earmarking.
It is just plain stupid that legislators from beyond Puget Sound to continue to decide what gets built here. There's no real accountability for them. Sound Transit wasn't really designed to build the sort of systems MacDonald advocates. As he notes, many local transit systems have their hands tied when it comes to making any new big play to match the need.
The world is turning. Yet Olympia seems stuck. Any winning reform will remove project picking by state legislators from the equation, break down the old funding restrictions, and bring the accountability closer to home.
Posted Thu, Jun 26, 9:15 a.m.
The last post raises a good point in that "we need to get started on SOMETHING!" During last year's Proposition 1 campaign, many of us kept our antipathy QUIET, based on just that reasoning.
But two things have changed. First, gas is up to $4.50 a gallon NOW. We are mortgaging our children's future to ensure a continual supply of "black gold" from the middle east. Secondly, climate change impacts - glaciers melting, acidic seas - are occurring faster than predicted. There is a compelling need for transit services SOONER and over a BROADER area, for both ECONOMIC and ENVIRONMENTAL reasons.
Whatever concern I might have about being perceived as politically incorrect by some people is far surpassed by my belief that we need to act faster, sooner, to get effective transit across this region -- to ensure the continuing quality of life here and to reduce the long-term impacts of all this upheaval on my grandkids.
SOUND TRANSIT'S PLAN TAKES TOO LONG AND DELIVERS TOO LITTLE. Yet it absorbs an enormous amount of money. I believe that money can be better used, FASTER, elsewhere.
Posted Thu, Jun 26, 9:18 a.m.
RE: New Capacity Needed: You know Olympia, huh? Thanks for this.
Posted Thu, Jun 26, 10:20 a.m.
I agree with the fundamental criticism of ST expressed by Sec. MacDonald, Rep. Eddy and others: It takes too much MONEY, too much TIME and does FAR TOO LITTLE.
Transit Guy sez that "ignoring the huge difference in rider experience is ridiculous [when] rail is more reliable, smoother, more spacious and a better overall experience."
Given light rail's very significant tax-support, ignoring the rider "experience" isn't half as ridiculous as ignoring its dismal cost-effectiveness. Why should the taxpaying public be expected to provide womb-like comfort and protection to transit commuters? Sheesh!! Who's driving this boat?
Posted Thu, Jun 26, 11:31 a.m.
"Eventually, vivaNext will replace buses on the dedicated rapidways with an even faster light rail transit system."
Posted Thu, Jun 26, 12:06 p.m.
Why don't we wait to see how much people like RapidRide to decide whether we need more BRT?
Posted Thu, Jun 26, 12:40 p.m.
I agree. But the answer is not to throw out the already extensively developed plans for light rail across I-90 to the Eastside. The answer is to invest more money so ST2.1 and even ST3 can be deployed more quickly. And, here's where Rep. Eddy can help.
Washington is the only state I can think of with a major metropolitan rail transit network without any state investment in that system. It's time for the state to recognize the value of increasing mobility throughout the Puget Sound region- the state's economic engine- and start directing state dollars to the build out of the Sound Transit light rail system.
Of course, the obvious question is where that money comes from given deficits in the transportation budget. But, I think, at least over the long run, these are issues of priorities and in an era of climate change, $4 or even $5/gallon of gas, and ever increasing demand for transit, it will be worth finding ways for the state to help accelerate construction and delivery of rail transit services.
Posted Thu, Jun 26, 3:50 p.m.
I'd take a cushioned seat on a bus over a hard-back seat on a train.
I'd take a seat on a train for a 40 min ride over a 30 min standing ride on a bus.
I'd stand for 20 mins on a bus instead of standing for 40 mins on a train.
I'd rather have a point to point bus ride that takes 40 mins than a 5 min bus ride, 5 mins wait to transfer, 10 mins on a train, 5 mins to transfer and 5 more mins for a ride on another bus. yes the point to point bus ride is 10 mins longer, but I'd get a lot more done in that time, and it would be more relaxing too.
I'd take whatever is safer, both in the bus and in the pre and post-boarding time. One of the only times I've been scared was in the train tunnels in Philadelphia. I've never felt unsafe at a surface bus stop, there are always people driving by on the street. But beneath the surface, the entrance and exits are choke points.
The point is: there are lots of factors that determine rider experience. Safety is a big one. My sense is some people don't like buses because of concerns about who else is on the bus. Fair enough. There's no guarantee the train will be any better though. This may be a function of time of day and location as much as mode.
Posted Thu, Jun 26, 4 p.m.
There definitely seem to be a lot of myths about transit. One of the more insidious ones seems to be "we have to create a better experience or otherwise people will just keep driving their cars. The bus experience is simply not good enough."
Well, then, how do we explain the growth in bus ridership? And why is it that the bus service in Denver had a faster rate of growth than the train service, as mentioned I think on day 2?
Also, does anyone have any data of how full the park and ride lots are in the suburbs or in Seattle itself? I bet they are jammed. If there were more park and ride lot spaces, I bet transit ridership would increase. The park and ride lots are the bottleneck, not the bus itself.
Or maybe another bottleneck is being able to get a seat on a bus. Some people for health reasons can't stand, yet there may not be a seat.
I think one of the points of this series is: demand is unmet. We need more capacity on current routes. We can do better with what we have going on now.
THe problem with ST's planning is: certain elements of the demand are simply not on the planning horizon. As Mr McDonald pointed out - there will be more parking spaces for Sounder customers, but they may be driving from outside the taxing district. What a deal for them! But what about people in Federal Way at the 272nd or 348th park and rides, or South Bellevue, or other locations - what tax increase will give them more spaces?
Posted Thu, Jun 26, 10:13 p.m.
Both of these gentlemen would limit HOV/HOT lanes to 30 hours a week (weekday rush hours only; 6-9 a.m. and 3-6 p.m.) All the rest of the week, no matter how congested the highways become, these lanes would be open to all traffic. They must know that traffic congestion is not limited to 30 hours a week, and they are content to see buses and other HOVs regularly stuck in traffic.
We can dream all we want about the magic of buses on special lanes, but no matter how good such transit could be, it would be forever at the mercy of a changed political climate, one that would validate an Initiative 985 or elect a Governor Rossi.
As Newsaholic wisely noted, in the major, highest-density travel corridors, BRT is a temporary fix. Rail transit will always be congestion-free travel. It will always be a smoother and more predictable ride (no potholes on steel rails). And it will never be at the mercy of roadwarriors who covet its right-of-way for more motor vehicles.
Posted Fri, Jun 27, 10:20 a.m.
Not sure what initiated sjenner's original incurable griping. One thing for sure: this complaint MacDonald and Jenner raise about sales tax equity is a total waste of time, and an indication any-rail zealots will stop at nothing to find new ways to pusue their un-winable approach. Yes, somebody outside the UGA may take the train to work from Auburn. But that transit patron is spending plenty of his/her hard earned tax dollars at the Supermall, and probably paying plenty into the Sound Transit kitty. Not so for mvet, the tax we used to use until Doug MacDonald's new-found light rail opponent friends torpedoed that revenue stream. MacDonald knows this sales tax issue is a classic straw man argument Hopefully, sjenner can claim ignorance on this front.
As for Rep. Deb Eddy: I've never met the woman; but judging from her contradictory statements and "playing both sides" approach to politics - if I lived in her district, I would do everything I could to expose the fraud she is trying to pull off here. Eddy is fully aware that Seattle and Bellevue are the two high density cities which justify the high infrastructure costs associated with light rail. But, for a number of reasons (totally divorced from 'metrics') Eddy has arbitrarily decided rail is not the correct application for I-90. Nevermind decades of planning back ST up. And nevermind the bridge was re-built to accommodate rail. The most embarrassing moment for debo came when she tried to explain Doug really isn't pushing for buses at all. This entire intellectual and professional debacle is really just about a (yet to be determined) transit technology, which will emerge tomorrow, and get built next week. Deb, Doug, and their Discovery Institute colleagues have been holding out hope for this "second coming" for many years, now. They just hope the general public won't figure out someday it's a scam, rooted in the pre-DARPA days of the Reagan Administration.
Tomorrow's carbon conscious commuters aren't going to be riding Deb and Doug's diesel buses. It won't be long before an honest BRT supporter crunches some actial numbers, and realizes one person per hybrid is the greener way to go. And what was that garbage about "competing bus routes?" If I learned anything from Deb Eddy's esoteric transit planning techniques: keep the meddling, clueless, and politicized legislators as far away from regional transport planning as possible.
Look, Luke Esser lost his job pulling the same stunt. Homeboy Luke voted FOR the 2005 TPA gas tax project list. But he voted against the taxes needed to build those essential roads projects. Eventually the votets caught on to the doublespeak. Eddy keeps having to remind us she's PRO transit. Yet, every time she posts, it's about some academic excercise, designed to send us all out in the wilderness for another 5-10 years, so we can all experience the creative cavities and recesses of the Intelligently Designed mind.
John Niles and Doug MacDonald both know it's both unsustainable and ineffective to dump tens of thousands of buses on already clogged streets and arterials, trying to make buses act like really huge taxi cabs.
Neither really believes in mass transit at all. Maybe it's in the water over at the Discovery Institute Mothership.
Posted Fri, Jun 27, 10:57 a.m.
Buses are a part of the equation either under MacDonald's proposal, or under a scenario where rail is the hub, but there are a lot of spokes as well, which I think is the implicit plan of Sound Transit. It is just that the plans of how many buses are needed for the spokes are not really spelled out, nor are the tax increase amounts that will be needed, all that's mentioned is a "building rail will free up bus capacity" argument.
It is a good point that people outside of the Sound Transit area do pay some sales tax. On the other hand, people inside the Sound Transit area probably are spending some money outside of Sound Transit's taxing district as well. Do you think all the car dealerships in Burlington and Mount Vernon and Monroe are selling only to people who live in the area? I think the broader point is - the taxing district boundaries are somewhat arbitrary. Or gerrymandered, to use another word.
What I like most about MacDonald's approach is "let's set a goal of a million trips in 5 years." I like that a lot better than "let's take 22 years to get a modest improvement in overall ridership." But I guess everyone has their own goals.
I just think his is more compelling than Sound Transit's. Especially since ST's are kind of vague or have big unknowns on several points: how much will it really cost to get to Microsoft, or to Tacoma, or to Everett? What are the real risks and reduced life span expectancy of the I90 bridge if rail if rail is placed on it?
Rail to northgate or Lynnwood could make some sense, but when I read today that the viaduct replacement might include HOV or HOT additions along I5, it makes me wonder how well we really know the alternatives. I say Lynnwood because that's where Community Transit seems to say they would want to end rides, but if they have to go to Northgate they might as well go into downtown Seattle.
Posted Fri, Jun 27, 9:39 p.m.
It is a legitimate question whether the Sound Transit plan is the best one for the region. There has not been an analysis of alternative system strategies for decades. The ST long range plan did not assess alternatives - there were only two alternative, do nothing, or do everything in their plan. The plan was not borne of a technical analysis. We have simply assumed that the best plan is to connect cities thirty and forty miles away with light rail, when virtually no other region in the world that I know of has used light rail that way. The alternative of a shorter and denser rail network, complemented with a high-standard bus and commuter rail option for long distance trips has never been examined, even though that's the model observed in most places throughout the world.
Let me make the case for urban, rather than "regional" (or inter-city) rail. Think about cities you've visited with rail systems. Did you like them because they could take you to distant suburbs? No, I don't think so - you probably liked them because they could get you between all the pedestrian-oriented places in or near the city you wanted to go to. Rail's greatest strength is for non-work trips, which are spontaneous and varied, not for work trips where you take the same trip every day. Rail's strength is its simplicity - it's easy to understand and there is no timetable required. For non-work trips, that's a game changer. For work trips, it's just a nicer ride quality, but for a much higher cost.
Non-work trips are short. They are the majority of transit (and auto) trips. If gas prices are going to stay high, and we're going to need lifestyle changes to limit the effects of global warming, we will need rail in Seattle and in the central Eastside for local circulation, not on the freeways where we have the capacity (with some guts) to deliver fast and reliable bus service. That is where the demand will be, and it's also where we have fewest options to make buses fast and reliable. And when we're done building whatever rail system we end up building, the majority of transit riders will still ride buses, since this is such a big region and rail simply can reach it all. We will need all the modes to contribute, not more fighting about which is best in all cases.
I think the focus on regional (rather than urban) rail is more related to finding a funding approach that spreads investment around the three-county area than it is on providing a transit system that transforms how we live and travel. Does that make me an anti-rail zealot or an anti-transit conspirator? I know some will think so. But in my opinion we won't move forward on a real transit solution as long as people keep playing the mode warrior game. We will need a respectful discussion where people with differing opinions listen to each other and assume each is well-motivated. Again, I appreciate the first steps offered by Crosscut to get a real discussion started.
Posted Sat, Jun 28, 1:06 p.m.
"Dump tens of thousands of buses on already clogged streets?"
I'm guessing I can speak for MacDonald as well as myself in responding, Yup, doing that would be both unsustainable and ineffective. Fortunately, this is not what pro-transit, pro-bus professionals are suggesting.
According to the Statewide summary of public transportation published by WSDOT, 1,923 fixed route public transit buses are operated now in the Sound Transit taxing district by all the various agencies. That many existing buses is just 20 percent of a mythical ten thousand buses.
A very modest increase in the existing bus fleet, adding a few hundred buses, deployed to the geographies where people want to go, would work miracles for local public transportation service and ridership compared to the Sound Transit plans for shuttling a few dozen light rail trains in a few corridors. Adding to the bus fleet by a number in the low hundreds, not the tens of thousands, should be the action plan for the present regional public transportation crisis of soaring demand and insufficient service.
Hearing King County Executive Ron Sims interrogating Sound Transit staff at the ST board meeting on June 26 about the amount and timing of bus deployment in the ST staff proposal to try to double its taxes in a Prop 1 Do-Over next November leads me to believe that this elected leader grasps the opportunity at hand to do better.
And despite the length of MacDonald's 3-part essay, he skipped many details in describing what needs to be done to make buses move better on congested highways and arterials. Debate and decision making on how to allocate and manage public right-of-way for competing uses -- public transit, private autos, trucks, emergency and public safety vehicles, bicycles, curb parking -- is an important fight worth having.
Motor vehicle owners paying by the mile on all roads and highways, variable by location and time of day to make off-peak driving cost less, gradually replacing the increasingly obsolete system of paying by the gallon, is going to be part of the long run solution for a smoother flow of buses, cars, and trucks on the roads. The comparative price of driving versus riding on the bus will motivate more use of transit, happening already with higher gas prices. The Cascadia Center for Regional Development, to its credit, is leading the charge on the road user fee issue on the non-government side -- the Center's tolling and traffic management conference event just held on June 26th will soon be broadcast on TVW, cable TV as well as webstreamed on demand.
On the government side, Puget Sound Regional Council is stepping up to the challenge of road user fees ASAP with great staff work, and with Executive Director Bob Drewel's leadership on the SR 520 tolling implementation committee.
The often repeated notion that the leading option for serving the customer load of public transit, whether buses or trains, should be constructing new exclusive right of way, as in $550 million per mile subway tunnels, is reasonable only in a region where money grows on trees. The Prop 1 election results show that we are not living in that region.
Posted Sat, Jun 28, 7:07 p.m.
A recent conference I attended explored 'accessibility' as the real key, and said it was made up of a combination of 'proximity', 'connectivity', and 'mobility'.
In the days of $4.50 gasoline, these distinctions take on greater importance.
Supposing Sound Transit was renamed Sound Access, to change the focus, and delinked from rail.
Surely the goal is not that that we drive more or less, or take the train or the bus, or walk, or cycle, or carpool, or telecommute, but that we have effective access to what we need to do, and the ability to choose what works best at the time. The combined provision of a variety of infrastructures might make it all work together much better than it does today.
Ensuring that the internet works well for the times we might be able to avoid travel; ensuring that the services we need are nearby so that any travel we need is most effective; and ensuring the travel modes available are the most effective for when we do need to travel, (including the walking/cycling/roading network, and the sov, taxi, car-share, car-pool, van-pool, bus, train, ferry systems, which should be 'right sized' to the time of day and purpose of travel)
What I am suggesting is widening the discussion to embrace the whole system, not just the mobility component. I think that the price of gas, if it doesn't drop a whole lot in the near future, is going to result in a fair amount of rethinking by people about lots of things they are doing. Maintaining a focus on just a piece of the system runs the danger of seriously incorrect decisions.
Posted Tue, Jul 1, 8:31 a.m.
No mention of the operating cost: One thing I haven't seen anyone mention is the cost of operating a BRT system. Right now, diesel is $5+/gallon. What happens when it gets to $7.50/gallon. $10.00/gallon? BRT may be cheaper to implement, but in a comparison of implementation costs + operating costs over a 20 year period which is actually cheaper?
Posted Thu, Jul 10, 12:25 p.m.
Silly me, I thought our traffic experts actually wanted to help people get from here to there, based on individual choices and needs. But no ... I learned that the larger part of the traffic world exists to push its particular vision of society. Not just how we travel, but how we live, where we live, where we work, and so on.....
These guys fight to the point that the particular plans themselves grow overaching and ideological.
Or, as one of my political junky friend suggests, do we need a charismatic local leader to strongarm the crazy quilt of transit agencies into a common approach that benefits us all? (Doug, are you available?)
Transit has always kind of been that way. This brings to mind two "charismatic local leaders" who had a big effect on transit.
The first was Robert Moses, who gained godlike political power in New York in the '30s, and used it up until the '60s to build freeways right through the heart of the most densely populated city in America. Moses' vision was of families (not commuters) traveling together in cars (not buses, and certainly not trains) down "parkways" lined with sylvan shrubbery to beaches and parks in the hinterlands. Mom and Dad and the kids would have a picnic together and return to the city refreshed. Moses' team, armed with extraordinary powers, nearly unlimited funding from bridge tolls and the New Deal, and protected by an image of benevolence and reform, razed whole neighborhoods, displaced hundreds of thousands of people, deliberately crippled mass transit in New York, and left behind a legacy of urban ugliness and traffic congestion far worse than what they started with. Moses was finally deposed in the '70s by the same citizenry who put him in power.
Another transit visionary, a contemporary of Moses, was Adolf Hitler. He, too, had a vision of (German) families traveling together down beautiful highways. Hitler went to great lengths to design the autobahn to look pretty from a distance, and to present a sensation of flying to persons traveling along it. He, too, saw families traveling together to the countryside on weekends, and prevailed upon German industry to mass produce the Volkswagen Beetle ('37 edition) to meet the need for an affordable vehicle to travel on the new roads. And Hitler, like Moses, exercised godlike power which, along with certain of his utopian visions, led to a bitter end. But you know that story, right?
The moral of the story is, beware of the Transit Czar. You may get more than you bargained for.
Posted Mon, Aug 18, 3:50 p.m.
How will the Sound Transit benefit south King county?: The proposed plan seems to have little benefit for south King county. In fact, it might make things worse. The plan doesn't offer much in itself, but it raises the transportation tax, which might make it harder for Metro to provide more service to the area. This plan seems to benefit the north and east sides of the region, but not for a long time. I think a tax increase should go toward more immediate relief from the traffic congestion we have now. To me, that means a bus-oriented system, not a train-oriented one.
Posted Wed, Aug 27, 1:17 p.m.
This an especially bad problem in South King County, the rail transit really only serves locals who work in downtown, and only inconveniences any southenders who live and work in the south end.
Adding more trains is only going to increase the congestion problems caused by the trains backing up traffic at the crossings.
What makes the problem even worse is that Sound transit insists on keeping the crossings blocked even when a train is stopped in a station and NOT blocking the street. So drivers are stopped for 3-5 minutes, while the train is stopped and in the station loading, at a crossing that is empty by still closed by the crossing gate.
NOT very good PR for Sound Transit. Why would anyone living and working in an area that isn't serviced by the train vote to add more trains? The argument that it will take some local drivers off the local streets because they're riding the train, is completely offset by the 3-5 minute un-neccessary backups caused at the street crossings.
I like trains and I'm not a big fan of buses, but in this case I think for the entire overall population (riders and non-riders) the trains are NOT a very good solution.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.


text:
Moderator Welcome to today's online chat with NCTM President Johnny Lott on NCTM's increased political advocacy efforts. For background on the topic of the chat, you can read Dr. Lott's President's Message.
Here is our first Question from:
Oakland, California
Most legislators have aides who specialize in education. They are usually interested in policy, which these days means accountability in education. They are not interested in mathematics, per se. Rarely do they have any idea what the NCTM standards are—that the standards are based on research in mathematics education, and that they are policy documents. Also that the standards represent a substantive contribution to classroom teaching. There seems to be a gulf between the aides and university spokespersons who often serve as advisers on important legislative committees, on the one hand, and NCTM representatives, who are sometimes classroom teachers. What about trying to break down those barriers?
Johnny Lott: At the national level, NCTM has put together a soon-to-be released NCTM legislative platform. With that in place and with the next Congress, the Council is planning to have a mathematics education legislative briefing for congressional aides and others of influence at the federal level. This conference could be modeled at the state level.
Question from: Auburn, Alabama
With more authority and influence shifting to states with No Child Left Behind, how does NCTM plan to support state-level efforts, such as committees developing state standards?
Johnny Lott:
With the NCTM Legislative Platform just approved by the Council's Board of Directors, there will be a series of toolkits developed to be used by NCTM Affiliates at the state level. Issues are so different in each state that it appears better to develop materials and provide them so that they can be adapted to different states and different specific issues. There is really no feasible way that the Council could fiscally be actively involved in each state except through its Affiliates.
Since you are from Alabama and I was just in Montgomery at the state conference, it appears that the Affiliates there have their work cut out for them working to improve the state budget for education. If the court case that was just won by the state is upheld, that could offer some help. Good luck.
How does one actually participate in this chat? I think it's a great idea.
Thanks for the thought. It appeared that this type of chat could help the President and Board of Directors of NCTM in answering questions from members. You can access the chat from the home page at www.nctm.org and we are sending out monthly e-mailings to members who might be interested based on the latest President's message in the NCTM News Bulletin.
Question from: El Centro, California
Could you describe the duties and makeup of NCTM's legislative committee?
NCTM really does not have a legislative committee as such. We hire a consultant in Washington to help keep us apprised of issues of interest in Congress.
There was a subcommittee of the Board of Directors that worked with our legislative consultant and the Director of Communications at NCTM to put draft a legislative platform. That was an ad hoc group that only met once. The idea is that a similar ad hoc group may be appointed every year to reconsider the platform and any changes.
Could you briefly describe what parts of the NCLB's legislation NCTM participated in the writing of?
Johnny Lott;
NCTM did not write any of the No Child Left Behind Act. We have participated in the Mathematics Education Summit meetings that have been sponsored by the Department of Education. Executive Director Jim Rubillo has been on the planning council for those meetings.
The Council is on record in the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM 2000) advocating a quality mathematics education for every child and is also on record in advocating for highly qualified teachers of mathematics in the classroom. Because these two items are behind the NCLB Act, I have been on record as supporting the tenets of the bill. It disturbs most of us when we see how the implementation phases of NCLB have begun to be carried out. That is one of the reasons for developing a legislative platform for NCTM.
Question from: El Centro, California Who is NCTM's lobbyist in Washington?
NCTM legislative consultant in Washington is Ellin Nolan, of Washington Partners. She has been working with the Council for several years now. Note that she is not NCTM's "lobbyist;" rather she is a consultant who provides information on bills and issues of interest. As a nonprofit organization, NCTM is limited in what can be done in the way of lobbying. We can and do provide information; that is legally very different from lobbying.
Question from: Columbia, South Carolina
Are we letting governors and key legislators know how many members we have altogether and how many we have in their state?
Every time that we target a member of Congress for a visit, we tie mathematics education issues to issues in their state. However, most of the targeted members are members of ranking committees considering legislation of interest to us. We do not regularly send out this type of information to all members of Congress because in most cases it would be of little or no interest to them.
Because we have between 90,000 and 100,000 members, including institutional members, out of the approximately 2 million teachers of mathematics in the United States alone, the numbers nationwide for the organization are impressive but are less so in a given state. This type of information is far more profitably used if state Affiliates approach the legislators with both Affiliate numbers and NCTM numbers. It also ties the contact more directly to the constituents or voters.
Are we letting politicians and those in chambers of commerce know the extent of the regional meetings that we have? Are we doing the same with national meetings?
Johnny Lott: With every regional and national meeting, there is a publicity committee that works to get the message to the local politicians and chambers of commerce. The success of this effort is largely dependent on the publicity committee. The communications staff at NCTM headquarters in Reston helps to set up interviews for the meetings. We have had everything from almost no publicity to having a TV camera in a classroom for an hour while I taught a class. Try being on a skateboard to draw a sine or cosine curve with a student pushing you and being filmed at the same time. It made great press for one regional. Again, much of this effort lies in the hands of the Affiliates helping with the meeting. At the annual meetings, there is typically a major politician or educator in the area who is at the opening.
We are probably less successful with the chamber of commerce. They typically help with the hospitality efforts at the meetings but haven't done much beyond that effort.
Do we let state departments of education, state superintendents, and key legislators know what we have to offer regarding standards, evaluation and assessment, etc. in our publications?
We certainly make every effort to reach key national legislators and work closely on different projects with NCSM and ASSM to reach departments of education. Members of those organizations are closely aligned with NCTM and we have a very high percentage of joint membership with those organizations. Because of the continually changing face of state legislators and state superintendents, contact is probably more profitably done through affiliates.
Right now a proposal to NSF has been jointly submitted by ASSM and NCTM to compare state standards on a grade-by-grade basis. Keep your fingers crossed for its being funded.
What is NCTM doing to get input from the general public? In my view, there is a disconnect between us "insiders" and others interested in our field. While a legislative committee may be difficult, are there other mechanisms that might be used?
NCTM commissioned a stakeholders audit conducted by Hill and Knowlton to help us understand some of the issues that arise in different arenas and how NCTM is viewed by various audiences. The audit surveyed legislators and legislative staff, news media, NCTM members, third-party influencers, and the NCTM Board and leadership. There are probably other areas where people have concerns. That is the reason that my email address has been widely distributed across the country. Perhaps the easiest way to express issues is to let the staff in Reston know. All messages that come to the Council that need Board input are passed on.
Question from: Palmdale, California
I think the biggest obstacle is money. Most teachers are (maybe rightfully so) concerned about wages and benefits, not issues. I feel that local unions needed to be equally concerned with class size, technology, discipline, etc. However, I am in the minority. Local, state, and national unions do not effectively use the clout they have.
While it is true that money is a major issue for retaining teachers and improving quality in the classroom, it is far from the only issue. Right now as much as one-half of the new teachers entering the workforce leave the classroom in the first five years of teaching. These statistics are from the Department of Education. Now on a local school level, we can do things without money to help retain these teachers. It does take an effort on the part of experienced teachers. By mentoring the new teachers, helping them with duties as they are learning how to teach, and by giving them far better school assignments and teaching assignments, we can help them survive to become "experienced" teachers with a teaching career shelf life of more than five years.
At the same time, money issues cannot be ignored. Teachers cannot continue to be underpaid. Changing this takes a local effort far more than a national effort. Salaries and benefits are controlled by local politicians. When there are so many states in financial distress, it is even more distressing to see budgets being balanced on the backs of powerless students. Invite politicians to schools and let them see on a regular basis (1) what teachers and students are doing and (2) have them talk to new teachers to learn of the weight of student loans, minimal salaries, and sometimes dire working and living conditions as a result of the personal financial distress.
Question from: Vancouver, Washington
We raise awareness with positive publicity. Through scholarships, math competitions, and easy-to-obtain professional development opportunities for our most motivated and brightest teachers to teach other teachers. Then we allow the media to tell our story. This becomes a win-win, and money isn't wasted on advertising or other non-educational things. Remember we are here for the children!!!
At one point in my career, I thought that mathematics education was above politics and advertising hype. As I have worked these past two years and traveled across the United States and Canada visiting schools and talking to teachers and have read the multitude of stories about mathematics education and schools that are far less than positive, I'm now convinced that we cannot be above it at all. Consider the continued rise in scores on NAEP that made back pages of newspapers in the past week. For a 14-year period, NAEP scores have risen in mathematics at some pretty dramatic levels. At the same time reading scores are basically flat. What made the headlines? Check out your local papers to see how it was handled.
Though NCTM sends out regular news releases with positive stories for the press, those are rarely picked up and widely distributed nationally. If you see education articles, they are on the local levels. This is the time for my spiel for each and every one of you to develop a relationship with a local reporter. You need to have them in your classrooms showing them what is going on at that level. It will help provide you with more support at a local level.
For Affiliates, NCTM has a Media and Communications Guide that can provide you help in getting started with reporters and media. Check with your Affiliate presidents to see what is being done in this area at that level.
Question from: Gallup, New Mexico
Do higher standards for teachers result in better education for students, and what is a higher standard? My bent is the "higher standards" eliminate some well-qualified people—lawyers, accountants etc.
There is evidence that teachers who have more mathematics in their background typically have students who score better on tests. However, and this is a big however, there is little evidence that those with more mathematics in their backgrounds and little in the way of pedagogy have the same success.
I understand your bent about "higher standards," but I think that you should consider that while higher standards are necessary for better teachers, that alone is not sufficient. In the same way that more mathematics may be necessary for better student performance, it is not sufficient to guarantee it. I contend (and you may disagree) that the better teachers are going to be those who have more and different strategies for teaching and who also have a knowledge of cognition or learning theories of how students learn in addition to the content knowledge are going to be the better teachers. I think that those are the people who have had better results in the research studies.
In the same way that well-qualified people cannot be doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. without background in those fields, "well-qualified" people should not be allowed to be teachers unless they are willing to be certified as teachers and have the prerequisite knowledge, experiences, and internships to do it.
One thought is that NCTM have an advisory board of leading persons from business, industry, government (NSF, ED), local governments, parental groups, mathematicians, etc. that would meet perhaps one or two times per year, just to react to what the Council is doing. Clearly there are people who really care about our field and just might be willing to lend a hand in shaping our public perception. (They might also end up being good third-party advocates.)
Thanks for this suggestion. Forming an outside "business" advisory board is currently being considered. At the October Board meeting, representatives of Toyota ,which sponsors the Toyota TIME awards with the Council, made a presentation to the Board. After that, the Board began preliminary discussions of how a group similar to what you described could be used by the Council. One thing that we do not want to do is to have an advisory board and then give them nothing to do. This will have more discussion in coming meetings.
Again, thanks for the suggestion.
Vancouver, Washington
Personally, I think that we are shoving so much down their throats that we have lost sight of the fact that math is fun. There is so much out there that is creative and full of art. Shouldn't doing math be as much fun as trying to find the best value when shopping? My students get more out of a lesson when we take time to talk about the math. But, with all the requirements in a year we have very little time to actually talk math.
I heard a very eloquent elementary teacher at the NCTM Charleston Regional meeting argue that the worst thing that a teacher could do was to talk about math being fun. This teacher contended that mathematics was so important that one who continually talked about fun was partly destroying the importance. I don't know if I agree with all of the teacher's comments, but I am sure that what is important is for students to sense and know that their teachers love what they teach and love having the students learn it. That may be different from fun though I'm not sure that "fun" won't come through in the process.
With your shopping example, some would contend that finding the best value when shopping is not fun at all because shopping is no fun at all.
With all the requirements, I think that there is very little time that we cannot talk math rather than having very little time to talk math. Talking can take many forms. Doing math history topics when working with different algorithms is one example. I think that one can do great "math talk" while teaching some pretty traditional concepts.
Question from: Triangle, Virginia
How do other organizations of NCTM's type approach Department of Education policies?
The approaches taken certainly vary by organizations.
NSTA (National Science Teachers Association) is preparing for the Summit on Science Education that is now planned for March as I understand it. It was originally scheduled for this fall. There has been some major discussion over the types of research that has been used and promoted by the Department of Education on reading. Not all the organizations agree with that research at all. Recent flat NAEP scores (if they are an indicator of current policy) are not a positive indicator of those policies.
Question from: Moscow, Idaho
What types of things has NCTM advocated for in Washington?
NCTM has worked for more funding of education and research regularly in the past. In addition, it worked (maybe unsuccessfully) to keep the material that had been available through the ERIC accessible at least in archival form. It is not clear that we won that battle.
Question from: Pullman, Washington
Does NCTM participate with other organizations to promote legislation in Washington?
NCTM, as an organization, its president and executive director, regularly participate in the Council of Scientific Society Presidents (CSSP) meetings in Washington and have made visits on the Hill as a part of that effort. This group is admittedly more interested in research in pure sciences than in mathematics education, but there is a group of mathematics and science educators who work inside CSSP. I am currently a candidate for the Board of that group. It is headed by Martin Apple in Washington, D.C.
Question from: Des Moines, Iowa
How can NCTM Affiliates help in working with educational policies?
Affiliates can help by working at the local level on both state and national politicians and on state boards of education. These people have to know what you are thinking. NCTM is a relatively small organization and one of 25,000 nonprofit organizations in the Washington, D.C. area. The best way to change educational policies is to continue work through local people.
Question from: Trinidad, Colorado
Is there a good place to find information about different states and data about them for legislative issues?
One of the single best places is the Council of Chief State School Officers at www.ccsso.org. The staff at CCSSO regularly collects state data. The other good source is through http://nces.ed.gov/. The National Council for Educational Statistics is a great place for the type of data requested.
Question from: Kansas City, Kansas
I support the Council's new direction to be more active in advocacy. And I acknowledge that in time it is something that should benefit all its members as a group and ultimately education. However, when it comes to asking individual teachers to act on their own, write letters to their members of Congress, and make phone calls, I think it's a lot to ask. Most of us have a hard enough time keeping up the preparing for the next class and doing what's expected of us from day to day. Isn't there a way you can be effective without asking so much from the members?
From visits to Capitol Hill and from talking with both legislative aides and to NCTM legislative consultant, it is clear that letters from members with a personal tone are far more effective than those that come from an organization. NCTM will continue to send letters and make calls, but know that those that are most effective are those that come from voters and not from an organization.
Affiliates can help by organizing message trees when there are letters to be written. This was used very effectively in some states in the past. Also, emails are very effective—maybe more so than letters.
Question from: Visalia, California
I'm curious to hear what your vision for the Council is in 5-10 years. Do you think this new direction toward advocacy means that NCTM will eventually become a recognized authority for its views on math education? Will the advocacy make NCTM an even larger target and put it in the position of having to fend off more criticism?
To the first question, the vision of NCTM is to be the recognized authority on mathematics education. To me it is an authority already. Unfortunately, not all have recognized it as such. The vision is to have it recognized for what it already does.
To answer the second question, the answer is yes. NCTM will probably be a bigger target as it is more widely recognized. That goes with the territory. If the Council is the authority, there are more who will criticize the organization. What we have to be much more careful of is to make sure that we can back up what the Council promotes mathematically.
Question from: Lexington, Kentucky
As a classroom teacher, how can I offer my services to NCTM's advocacy efforts?
First, be active in your local affiliate and volunteer for NCTM committees by sending your name and information about how you would like to be involved using the committee volunteer request at www.nctm.org.
Second, get to know your local reporters and invite them to see what you and the students do in your classroom.
Finally, make sure that your legislators at all levels know some mathematics teachers whom they can trust and go to for information on a local level.
Thank you for asking.
Question from: Amarillo, Texas
On the Legislative Platform under Assessment it says that NCTM "Supports the use of testing only to improve student learning." Does that speak against the use of large-scale testing such as the NAEP?
The platform does not speak against the use of large-scale testing such as NAEP. Few people believe that we should not test. The biggest problem is with the misuse of results. Large-scale tests of the type mentioned should never be used to identify students. They can be used to compare results among states and across the nation. They can be used to identify trends in mathematics education over time.
They should not be used as high-stakes assessments that keep students out of mathematics in the future.
Question from: Richmond, Virginia
More is being written about how NCLB policies are taking school away from students. From students who are being prevented from pursuing certain careers to legal immigrants being denied public education, the larger policies seem to be hurting those most in need. Is there a way for NCTM to be politically active toward addressing these concerns?
Currently, we are looking at some of the implementation policies being enacted under NCLB. Those are hard to deal with on a national level. Many are state-implemented interpretations of NCLB. Those are almost impossible for a single organization to address. They may have to be addressed locally.
It is very clear that all states are not implementing policies in the same manner at this time.
Question from: Tallahassee, Florida
As a national organization, does NCTM sees itself in a position to get grassroots support for issues? Other groups seem to do a much better job of mobilizing, in a real and emotional way, a small segment of the public to their benefit. Does NCTM have plans to help at this level?
Grassroots efforts typically do not spring from national organizations but from individuals or in the case of mathematics education—Affiliates. An example is seen in the resolutions at the Delegate Assembly of NCTM. Those resolutions typically start with individuals or Affiliates. Perhaps one method of beginning grassroots efforts is to consider how Affiliates can be more involved in promoting important issues. The organization can plant the seeds; the nurturing of grass roots must come from members.
I do note that many of the recent grassroots efforts have been the result of having parents feel that their students are being threatened in some way. Our most effective spokespeople are teachers from their classrooms and with parents. There is where our messages must make inroads.
Question from: Potosi, Missouri
What can I do to help?
Get involved in an NCTM Affiliate, volunteer there and at the national level as soon as you have a bit of experience. We need you.
Get to know reporters and legislators.
Question from: Hobart, Oklahoma
Why did we wait so long?
NCTM is a professional organization and as such tried to stay above the fray in promoting mathematics education. Current events have caused this stance to be rethought. An organization that represents 90,000-100,000 members has to think long and hard about the voice that it is to have. We need to represent our members, and it is not always clear how they want to be represented.
Location Unknown
"What we have to be much more careful of is to make sure that we can back up what the Council promotes mathematically."
What does this mean?
One valid criticism is that we have not always in the past had hard evidence to substantiate rhetoric. We must make sure that we have that evidence.
Question from: Santa Fe, New Mexico
What's next for the Council?
The goal is to make the Council an indispensable part of each mathematics teacher's world. Continuing to develop an online presence, producing coordinated and comprehensive professional development conferences, and producing quality publications are a part of that "what's next." A personal goal is to continue to increase membership. Bigger is better in the political arena.
Thank you all for your participation in today's chat. A full transcript of the chat will be posted on the NCTM Web site with the next two days.
Good evening.
As NCTM works toward more political advocacy for mathematics education, each of us has the responsibility to make sure that there is no politician or reporter who does not know the names of good mathematics teachers. As you sign off tonight, think about the ways you can contact your local legislators and reporters to give them your names and contact information. Thank you much for participating tonight.
Editor's Note: NCTM moderators retain editorial control over online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts. The moderator and host may decline to answer questions.
Your feedback is important! Comments or concerns regarding the content of this page may be sent to email@example.com. Thank you.
Copyright © 2015, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I grabbed on of these cool Lute Soundhole Cover. So much sexier then the Planet Waves rubber cover.
Check them out at http://www.lutehole.com
Today I happened to find myself in the acoustic guitar section of the downtown Tom Lee. I was strumming away the hours on this nice Taylor guitar (it happens to be the Taylor guitar I was going to buy when I become a rich & famous rockstar) when this other customer comes on in & we strike up a conversation about the Taylor guitars I was playing as well as other guitars. I tell him about my favourite guitars and he tell me about his & after one thing leads to another we come up with a deal to potentially trade some of this for some of that. Fastforward to a 1/2hr later where I meet up with him at a coffee shop near his house and I trade him a guitar and some gear that I had for sale for his super lovely Taylor 314ce guitar.
I think I will name it Hannah mostly because Hannah is a good name but also because it is a palindrome and palindrome's are cool! Yup it is beyond super swell! That is all!
with the Epson V750 is awesome!
Bought this babe for cheap of the craigslists! Literally this is worth like twice what I paid for it. Â It is well worn in just how I like guitars :) Sounds Amazing!!
I have been looking at my Epiphone Les Paul as of late and thinking you know I think that this Guitar with all the trimmings needs a bit more bling!
I found very little information about adding bigsby's to anything little lone a Les paul. So after much research I discovered a couple of neat things about adding the tremolo, but first Lets looks at adding some knob bling.
The Guitar Before all the Mods
Adding indicators.
I looked at replacing the Knobs with squared off Gibson type knobs and was able to hook some up for nearly nothing on ebay, however the knobs sat quite high of the top so I stuck with the high hat knobs that came with the Epipi. I did however subtle it is add some knob indicators (again hooked up via ebay) which despite being so subtle I think its adds a lot.
Next I had to de-string the guitar to pull of the tail piece.
One of my hesitations about adding the Bigsby to the epiphone was the screwing it down to the top of the guitar. While the epiphone is not a $3500-$6000 Gibson Les Paul, I did pay enough money for it that I wasn't really interested in screwing shit permanently to the top of the guitar. After a bit of research I discovered Vibramate. Vibramate is a company that makes adapters for adding bigsbys to a variety of guitars. You bolt the adapter to bolt holes from the tail piece and then screw the Bigsby to the adapter. genius really! It does set the tremolo up off the top a little bit but it is totally removable with no permenate damage.
I am super happy with the out come but one last thing I should have gotten before starting this was a roller bridge. Even with flat wounds the strings do catch on the existing bridge and can cause some tuning issues.
So I was reminded the other day of the good old days when we would attempt to record our jam sessions on a video camera that we would sit on the corner on a speaker and hope that we would get something that sounded even remotely close to what we were playing. We have come a long way since then starting with the addition of the Zoom H4, Darren and his FireFace