Disqus - Latest Comments for sherwinhlee

Re: Good News: The Church Is in Good Hands

sherwinhlee — Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:55:27 -0000

Hi Grace,

As a Chinese American, my personal observation is that reformed theology has not flourished in the Asian American church. I'm interested in hearing more of your experience and insight. If you happen to see this, I'd love for us to connect. My email is sherwin.h.lee@gmail.com.

Regards,
Sherwin L.

Re: Why We Should Stop Talking About 'Bus Stigma'

sherwinhlee — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:38:19 -0000

Maybe because the population of the US is more than 13 times greater than the population of Australia? I guarantee you that transit ridership per capita is far higher in Australia than in the US.

Re: Maine School District to Buy Kindergarteners iPads

sherwinhlee — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 23:07:44 -0000

You know how I learned letters and words? By pencil and paper. Worked out pretty well. You should give it a shot.

Re: On The Wretchedness Of A Culture In Which People Get So Upset About Bicycles

sherwinhlee — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 03:34:58 -0000

No, what you said was that there was "eliminationist rhetoric" toward people who "have to drive." I didn't see any, but I think that's beside the point, because there are not many commuters today that "have to drive." Saying that "sometimes people..have to drive," therefore we should [blank] is as dumb as when pro-choicers say that abortion should be legal because some women get raped (No, I'm not a misogynist, realize I'm making a logical argument here).

Re: Portland vs. Seattle

sherwinhlee — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 01:12:44 -0000

Arguably, our weird geography drives our high transit use.

Re: Why We Need More (and More Expensive) Paid Parking

sherwinhlee — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:14:10 -0000

As per Anc's reply, one might want to define what kind of suburb we're talking about. Villas hardly apply-- they were mostly rural estates, far different from the American exurban bedroom communities that we know. Would you not agree that post-war suburban development would not be possible without highways?

Re: Why We Need More (and More Expensive) Paid Parking

sherwinhlee — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 03:53:49 -0000

I've picked up many books in my lifetime, but if you'd like to use ad hominems, then I'd argue that that's a better metric for whether someone is qualified to comment or not. Unlike you, I won't pretentiously snipe at someone with irrelevant assertions-- i.e., I don't recall ever saying anything about making an intellect from a keyboard.

I know about Haymarket Square. Your point?

Re: Why We Need More (and More Expensive) Paid Parking

sherwinhlee — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 02:22:12 -0000

Historical government-backed suburbanization, housing policies, et al., and cumulative auto-oriented subsidies have added up to an amount that far exceeds anything that has remotely been in favor for urban density. Before our modern era, people demanded living in urban areas free from much government intervention-- suburbs as we know them did not exist. You're aware that suburbs are a government concoction? Without the policy and subsidy, they would be nonexistent.

Re: Why We Need More (and More Expensive) Paid Parking

sherwinhlee — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:53:15 -0000

Paid parking is exactly a free-market capitalist's dream. Land is at a premium in downtown with limited parking capacity. What's so socialist about charging money for limited parking supply?

Re: Election results rolling in - Bellevue Reporter

sherwinhlee — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:50:46 -0000

Re: VIDEO | The light-rail debate - Bellevue Reporter

sherwinhlee — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:17:30 -0000

Okay, there are a few problems with your post. First of all, the BNSF Eastside rail corridor is not a "rail system" as you describe it. It's a defunct freight line. King County only wanted to rip out the tracks when Ron Sims was still exec: that's still in limbo. And you must be very oblivious to light rail expansion, because the East Link light rail alignment will not travel along that corridor. Sound Transit Board's preferred route doesn't even go anywhere near the BNSF line.

Big lie? I never said that transit would relieve congestion alone. Face the truth. The only reason why we have congestion is because of single-occupancy vehicles. You call rail the most expensive option when WSDOT is spending billions of dollars each of year of taxpayer money to expand roads. Rail is almost always more marginally cost-effective. Bi-directional single tracks of light rail can accommodate up to 12,000 trips an hour with four-car trains and frequent headways during peak hours. The comparable right-of-way for a highway? Two-direction, two-lanes and the capacity? 2,000 automobiles before inducing congestion. http://seattletransitblog.c...

People obviously only cry over congestion when they're the ones stuck in it.

I said you were lying because you stated that rail transportation "was too expensive," which is untrue because rail systems used to always turn a profit. The only reason why that's not the case anymore is because of road subsidies. Tell me, when was the last time WSDOT was making a profit from roads? Let's face it. We're spending billions a year on roads that don't even relieve congestion, worsen bottlenecks, and limit capacity? And you're the ones crying "Taxed Enough Already!"?

Re: VIDEO | The light-rail debate - Bellevue Reporter

sherwinhlee — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:06:04 -0000

Kemper Freeman's arguments are nothing about a farce. I've written a lengthy rebuttal here:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/p...

Saying that bus rapid transit will attract more people because it reaches every "nook and cranny" is off-the-charts the stupidest thing I've ever heard. People HATE buses that stop every two blocks. This is why KC Metro is consolidating stops along a number of routes. The 7 is notoriously slow EXACTLY because it reaches every nook and cranny. It seems Mr. Freeman doesn't even understand transit mode roles.

Boyerbl, you are only kidding yourself. And you basically just purported a lie. Back in the first half of the 20th century when we had streetcars and interurbans, everyone took public transportation. Transit systems were actually turning profits because higher ridership subsequently lowered cost per boardings. When GM, other automakers, and the government took a stake in the transportation market, they decided to introduce automobiles as the best way around things. Massive socialization of taxpayer money went towards roads and highway subsidies, effectively knocking off profitable transit. Rail transportation was and is too expensive? Just in the last two decades, Japan Railways Group received ownership of rail networks that were previously under government control in Japan-- now, these systems are making a profit, compared to Amtrak in this country. Why? It's because the Japanese government never created such enormous subsidies for roads as the American government did.

Face it. Expanding roads doesn't relieve congestion. It shifts and worsens bottlenecks, creates chokepoints at merging lanes, and puts overflow onto our surface streets. Read my rebuttal for more.

Lastly, I'm disappointed in conservatives who have long been anti-transit and pro-roads. I have long considered myself a libertarian conservative but nothing is more clear to me than the fact that our roads network is the biggest socialization of taxpayer dollars for infrastructure than anything else. Any sensible conservative would understand that. Now, I know why people call us regressive. It's people like Freeman that are making me vote for Constantine.

Re: East Link vote didn't get an approval in Bellevue - Bellevue Reporter

sherwinhlee — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:06:43 -0000

Due to lack of evidence, contradicting numbers to real evidence, and purporting of a lie, I recommend the editor remove this piece from the website to maintain the credibility of the Bellevue Reporter.

Re: East Link vote didn't get an approval in Bellevue - Bellevue Reporter

sherwinhlee — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:02:52 -0000

Nice try, Dave, but none of your facts add up. In fact, the election results from 2008 by legislative district tell quite a different story. 56.57% of voters approved Prop. 1 in the 41st district, and 57.30% in the 48th district. You can read the 88th page of the results tally: http://your.kingcounty.gov/...

It's one thing to oppose a voter-mandated mass transit expansion, Dave, but another thing to lie while doing it. Still, I agree with you. The candidates should consider the actual voting results. Seeing as more than 56% of voters approved the measure in both districts, the council should fully proceed with East Link.

Re: Light rail line not the answer - Bellevue Reporter

sherwinhlee — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:28:37 -0000

I'm afraid I completely disagree, Lydon. You ask who the Central Link serves. Well, the counters are registering about 17-18,000 boardings a day. That's some 8-9,000 commuters. Is that no one? Have you looked at the preferred alternative route for East Link? It serves the highly utilized South Bellevue P&R, Downtown Bellevue (the second largest employment center in the state), and through the Bel-Red neighborhood, which is currently slated for a massive urban renewal project in the City's long-range planning initiatives. The line will draw 48,000 daily trips, which will likely expand with ST's transit-oriented development initiatives.

Take a look at my rebuttal of Kemper Freeman's arguments:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/p...

Here's a look at Freeman's real reasons for opposing the line (hint: it's got nothing to do with public benefit):
http://seattletransitblog.c...