Comments on Ron Sims Comes Out Against the Transit/Roads Package

Repeat after me: There is no way that Gov. Gregoire and Speaker Chopp will allow a light rail vote in a big election year.

It's not gonna happen. Welcome to political reality. Enjoy your stay.

I am extremely disappointed in Ron and intend on sending him a letter outlining my displeasure. I understand that the Sound Transit Board was unanimous on the package.

Where can I join the Ron Sims Fan Club? This is why we love this man - true progressive leadership, even if it's politically risky. Right on, Executive.

Wooooo! RTID is dead. Now if they'll fucking break up the package, I can vote for transit and say to hell with the roads.

Did you hear that folks? that was political reality, shifting.

@1

And what happened the last time we had a big transit measure on the ballot in a general election?

Oh yeah, 1996 was a pretty good year for Democrats around here.

Thank you Ron Sims for your courageous stand against Prop 1.

I've been terribly disappointed that our ostensibly progressive leaders have ignored -- if not denied -- the global warming impact of the all the highways in Prop 1.

It's a great day when at least one of them is brave enough to tell the truth.

@1:

Paradigm shifts do not come from within the dominant paradigm.

Ron makes John Kerry looks decisive.

Ron voted for this plan just a few short months ago.

Now he joins the company of Gary Nelson (R) and John Koster (R) of Snohomish County in opposing.

Ron said we should build more light rail all across this region. Now he is satisied with light rail just in Seattle.
Ron said he supported the surface transit option, but now opposes the projects needed (Spokane Street and Lander, etc) to make the surface transti a reality.

get ready for the attacks- we'll now be treated to the spectacle of "liberals" attacking a leader like Sims on this thread. if you can't address the argument, attack the person (or the sierra club).

Sims has big brass ones. If only we had leadership this decisive on the climate front at any higher level of government.

Editorials & Opinion: Thursday, January 11, 2001

Guest columnist

Why we must proceed with light-rail plan

By Ron Sims, Bob Drewel, John Ladenburg and Dave Earling

Special to The Times

Local, elected officials from throughout Snohomish, King and Pierce counties will meet this afternoon to decide whether to accept a $500 million federal grant and with it a commitment to begin building a light rail train system to serve the people of our region.

It’s a decision that, regardless of the outcome, will affect how people live and get around in the Central Puget Sound region for the next 100 years or more. The issue facing the region’s leadership is whether we’re finally going to do something about improving transportation, or whether we’re content to let our transportation system - and our way of life here - continue to deteriorate.

We think the best choice is to go forward with light rail.

Sims is seriously impressing the hell out of me lately. Right ON.

I love this phrase from Ron Sims's op-ed: "In a region known for our leadership efforts to reduce greenhouse gases,…" Uh, let's see:

1. We're one of the few metropolitan areas left in the country without an operating mass transit system.
2. We just might be the only metropolitan area in this nation's history to kill a mass transit system after we had already decided to pay for it.
3. We've got some of the worst traffic congestion in the country.
4. Our major city is zoned 70% single-family housing.
5. We can't seem to get straight that it's not a good idea to build a massive elevated freeway along a scenic downtown waterfront.

And we're known for our leadership in combating climate change? The only leadership this region has shown is in getting national media attention for signing meaningless, feel-good pledges.

Ron Sims has already checked out politically from King County. He's already sizing up that sinecure he's planning to get in the next Clinton administration in exchange for his endorsement.

But Ron, thanks for the lovely parting gift. Coming from the same guy who worked behind the scenes to kill the monorail project and then decided to replace that by slapping a phony "bus rapid transit" sticker on the same, old conventional bus service, I would expect nothing less.

I want my light rail. Get out of the way Ron.

Ron Sims' position in transportation is shakier than the 520 bridge.

This guy has no idea where he is going. I wouldn't even drive in his lincoln town car with him let alone follow his transportation policy advice.

Can I get some extra shrill from RTID supporters? Thought so.

Ron's editorial gripes about the length of time it will take to build out light rail...

"The benefits of this package are far from immediate. Even if on schedule, 60 percent of new light rail won't open until 2027. Light rail across Lake Washington is at least 14 years away. The Northgate extension is 11 years away."

This REALLY irks me as an argument from the former chair of Sound Transit. Then he goes on to slam some of the proposed light rail service and touts increased bus service as a better answer for serving that corridor. Huh? You were like an adamant supporter of light rail. And, hell, we know it will take a long time to build it but people will ride light rail when it is finally built. Across the nation we have seen that adding lines to a system goes a lot quicker for transit agencies than building the initial lines.

When I first heard that Ron was not supporting the package I thought, "..What the hell?” I decided to keep an open mind and actually read his editorial. What I read actually blows me away. This is simply a bunch or recycled rhetoric that I have been hearing for years and that I have heard the ST Chair Ron Sims blast into a million pieces.

This sucks!

cressona:

I think his point is that we talk the talk, so now it's time to walk the walk.

Also, let's be clear about ST. We have one line going in, plus its first extension. That's not going to change. The system will be expanded. The question is, are we going to expand the system with regard to our long-term goals, or not?

Transit will be back for exactly the points that you raise.

Josh,
You love to catch people in contradictions.

So did Sim vote for this package as a Sound Transit board member? Wasn't he involved at all in shaping what's now on the ballot.

In other words, was he for it before he was against it?

Do some reporting, please.

check out his comments about the location of the light rail. I agree with him. Building light rail south to Tacoma along pacific highway and up I-5 for a glorified commute line are wastes of money at this time. Better to use the same funds to connect the highest-density locations in the Everett and Tacoma subareas, respectively, and rely on a combination of tolling and express bus to work our the intercity, primarily commute work trips. Light rail to bellevue is more dicey. Were it not for the Lake, it would be a non-issue, but engineering challenges will make for a long transit time from Seattle (esp north end) to the eastside stops.

Sims revises proposed transportation plan

By JANE HADLEY
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

As regional leaders try to come to agreement on a transportation package to put before voters, King County Executive Ron Sims yesterday released his latest proposal.

Sims does not have a vote on the three-county Regional Transportation Investment District that would officially adopt a package, but he has refused to stay on the sidelines.

"My goal is to lead," Sims said. "I am fatigued over discussions."

Sims latest 10-year proposal comes in at a total of $7.2 billion for King County projects, compared with $6.5 billion for a version he released in September. The investment district board has been considering a 15-year $9 billion package.

Ron Posthuma, assistant director of King County's Department of Transportation, said Sims' package is about 10 percent smaller than what the district had been discussing.

Gaining ground in Sims' proposal this time around is Interstate 405, for which Sims now proposes to spend $2.085 billion, compared with $1.3 billion in his September proposal.

"The increased amount for 405, I'm pleased with that," said Bruce Nurse, transportation representative of Eastside shopping center developer and owner Kemper Freeman.

But Freeman and other I-405 champions such as King County Councilman Rob McKenna have said that $3 billion is the minimum acceptable from the investment district for I-405. They want two more general-purpose lanes in each direction.

Sims' package would add one managed traffic lane in each direction on the Eastside interstate. A managed lane is either a car pool lane or a high-occupancy toll lane that allows solo drivers into the car pool lane if they pay. The tolls are set to ensure the lane remains free flowing.

Environmentalists and transit advocates are opposed to adding four general-purpose lanes to I-405 but have expressed some willingness to consider adding a managed lane in each direction.

Peter Hurley, executive director of the pro-transit Transportation Choices Coalition, said Sims' proposal is "much more cost effective" than the proposal to add two general-purpose lanes in each direction.

Losing ground since September in Sims' proposal are the Evergreen Point Bridge and state Route 167. The bridge proposal went from $1 billion to $570 million. The bridge would be replaced by a new six-lane structure, but widening on land up to Interstate 5 would be deferred. And Route 167 went from $310 million to $112 million, which would be used to extend carpool lanes south from Auburn to state Route 410.

Even if voters agree to $7.2 billion in taxes for King County projects and even if the federal government comes through with money, some projects, including the Alaskan Way Viaduct, and state Routes 520 and 167, still fall short.

Hurley was not totally satisfied with Sims' overall package. "There's a big transit gap in there," he said.

Sims would spend 53 percent on roads, 21 percent on carpool lanes and 26 percent on transit, including $1.33 billion to take light rail to Northgate and to Sea-Tac Airport.

Hurley said recent polling indicated that voters want 40 percent transit in a transportation package. He wants to see funding for light rail across Interstate 90 included.

P-I reporter Jane Hadley can be reached at 206-448-8362 or janehadley@seattlepi.com

Leadership?

Ron doesn't know what he believes.

Seattle PI
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/157617_transit22.html

Gaining ground in Sims’ proposal this time around is Interstate 405, for which Sims now proposes to spend $2.085 billion, compared with $1.3 billion in his September proposal.

@20,
Duh. Of course he voted for it before he was against it.
That's why it's a big deal.
Your point was what?

i heard him on KUOW this morning trying to explain/justify his position. he just came across as weasel-y (and he kept referring to himself in the third person, as in "ron sims needs to do what is good for ron sims conscience, not just ron sims political career"- gag). sure, there should be some environmental concerns about the roads part of the package, but JESUS CHRIST folks, no transportation package is going to pass without major road improvements as part of the deal. it's a political reality. people drive in single occupancy vehicles, and will continue to choose to do so, until gas prices force them not to, or congestion pricing is enacted (and technology is changing in autos rapidly - by 2027 most vehicles will not be soley gas-powered. clean powered vehicles will be the majority). plus, we need road improvements (along with transit improvements) desperately. have you driven on 520 lately? it's a nightmare.

sims opposition is the same old seattle process shit -- discuss, postpone, discuss, postpone, vote, re-vote, discuss some more and postpone. if you think our transit and road situation is shit now, if we keep this present pattern up, we're in for a world of hurt in 10 years. i am so dissapointed in our elected officials and their total spineless inability to lead us out of this mess.

Before the Sierra Club covers itself in hugs, read the op-ed. He spends one throwaway sentence complaining about RTID (and it's about the lid on SR520, not anything important), and then spends the rest of the piece bashing ST2.

This is not the argument of someone who is looking to divorce the road package from transit; he's on the "scrap ST2 and start over on rail transit" bandwagon.

Then he extols the virtues of BRT, telecommuting, vanpools, etc. Sharkansky couldn't have said it better himself.

I rant more here.

This is an anti-rail essay. There's no other reasonable way to construe it.

As I said - and as will be proven true (too bad you media folks don't know what you can get with a simple FOIA request) - we will have a Feb 2008 ST2.1 vote.

Which Ron will back. (this part is a prediction).

As will the Sierra Club and all the Dem districts that didn't endorse RTID/ST2 as a combined vote.

RTID will .. um, sorry, don't know what that will come back as, maybe a county or King/Snohomish dual county bridge and roads and HOV and interchange package. But the necessary repair parts will come back.

At least Ron has guts, even if most of the other politicos won't tell you what's really going on.

Fix it first Ron? Since when?

Seattle PI
Losing ground since September in Sims’ proposal are the Evergreen Point Bridge and state Route 167. The bridge proposal went from $1 billion to $570 million. The bridge would be replaced by a new six-lane structure, but widening on land up to Interstate 5 would be deferred. And Route 167 went from $310 million to $112 million, which would be used to extend carpool lanes south from Auburn to state Route 410.

The transit package never should have been bundled together with the roads package.

and now, on to Cressona @14 (see you borrowed my point system, too bad you never directly answered my questions ...):

I love this phrase from Ron Sims's op-ed: "In a region known for our leadership efforts to reduce greenhouse gases,…" Uh, let's see:

1. We're one of the few metropolitan areas left in the country without an operating mass transit system.

Really? Hmmm, and would that be because we voted for some a few times and then let the roads people kill it?

2. We just might be the only metropolitan area in this nation's history to kill a mass transit system after we had already decided to pay for it.

This is false.

3. We've got some of the worst traffic congestion in the country.

Actually, no. We're one of the better ones, but keep spinning.

4. Our major city is zoned 70% single-family housing.

And that's because we fought these things called WARS in WW I and WW II and Korea and we built single-family housing in giant land tracts.

But, good point, we should get started zoning 100-story residential rental apartment buildings surrounded by green space (50 percent, fully open to sidewalks, no gates, playgrounds included) near major transit points.

5. We can't seem to get straight that it's not a good idea to build a massive elevated freeway along a scenic downtown waterfront.

How's that working for you? Last time I checked, it was going pretty well, and the political reality shifted on that when Cary Moon and many other people (including myself) said it was a viable option over and over and over.

@26

Ron Sims is on the "get politics out of transportation policy and do what's right for taxpayers and the planet" bandwagon.

Thank god for Ron Sims, and god save him from the confederacy of dunces who'll now attack him for speaking straight on this issue. The same dunces who attack everybody other than the low-beam politicians who contrived this sorry marriage between rails and highways.

Will in Seattle @30, my point is that it's a joke to say that this region deserves to be considered a leader in fighting climate change. So you agree with Ron Sims on this? (Oh, and Will, be honest -- we won't tell anybody -- how'd you vote on that expanded viaduct?)

Anyway, I think Sims makes some legitimate points about the routing, but we can debate routing for eternity. And then he gets into sort of classic anti-rail arguments.

But here's the most depressing passage, even if it's just a statement of fact:

Light rail across Lake Washington is at least 14 years away. The Northgate extension is 11 years away.

So instead waiting 14 years, thanks to Sims we might end up waiting 16 or 18 years, or who knows how long, if ever. Isn't replacing 520 going to take 10 years or so? Maybe we shouldn't do that project either. Maybe we shouldn't do anything that's not going to provide immediate gratification.

Reading stuff like this, I can't help but start thinking, "Where should I move?" Yeah, everyone at once now: Be our guest.

I like Ron, but we need both - I'm voting for it.

Hurley was not totally satisfied with Sims' overall package. "There's a big transit gap in there," he said.

Sims would spend 53 percent on roads, 21 percent on carpool lanes and 26 percent on transit, including $1.33 billion to take light rail to Northgate and to Sea-Tac Airport.

Well sports fans, for those keeping score, it’s 2-0

2 Opposed both Viaduct tunnel and RTID: Ron Sims, Sierra Club

0 Supported tunnel and RTID: Greg Nickels, other enviros

Will @27,

How do you read that editorial and think that Sims will back ST2? He criticizes every part of the project - North, South, and East, claiming they're either too slow or poorly considered.

That's my other nightmare. ST2/RTID goes down thanks to progressive votes. As you say, ST2 goes up for a vote by itself, but without the support of the road people. Progressives like Ron Sims and certain elements in the Sierra Club still oppose the measure because they don't like its design principles.

And we go back to the drawing board. See you in 2050.

@32 - just because I like to flirt with Cary Moon in person, as you well know, I ended up voting for a total rebuild of the Viaduct. But the Surface Plus Transit would have died if myself and other people hadn't kept saying "but the Surface Plus Transit option is a viable choice that is far better than an insane underwater tunnel". Which was then picked up by tunnel people who said the rebuild of the Viaduct was bad but the surface plus transit was better than the rebuild.

It's called shaping the debate.

Hey, ECB, sorry it took me a while to mention, but remind yourself and Josh that the reason David Della got the money from a certain Fremont landowner is because of his position on the Viaduct vs Tunnel debate.

Want light rail faster? Build the bridge faster. But at 40 percent funding that ain't gonna happen any time soon.

@36 - because I know Ron. I've gotten into shouting matches with him sometimes.

Ron is just cluing in earlier than most politicos that the ground has shifted and global warming is NOW. As the population already knows.

This guy just wants all transit money to go into his little metro bus kingdom because he runs that agency.

Will @38,

It's nice that your such an insider, but if he's so fired up about global warming aside from the boilerplate in his essay, why didn't he address the problems with RTID, instead of attacking a rail plan that will reduce emissions?

MHD 226:

This is not the argument of someone who is looking to divorce the road package from transit; he's on the "scrap ST2 and start over on rail transit" bandwagon.

This is what's remarkable to me. The only part of ST2 he supports is the extension to Northgate, the part that was supposed to be in the original Central Link. Everything else -- east, north, south -- he opposes.

It's hard not to see that most of those who are saying, "Let us vote just for ST2 without the roads albatross hanging from it," would still oppose ST2 if it came back by itself and in its current form. Sims doesn't even make that hypothetical pretense. I guess I should at least appreciate his honesty in that regard.

In fact, in the unlikely event that light rail came back to the ballot by itself in the next couple years -- the "no" campaign message will hew very close to what Sims is saying now. It will take too long to build. It's too expensive. It's not cost-effective. It's too much of a burden on taxpayers. Why can't we just do buses? (Oh, and we're really not anti-transit. Wink-wink.)

Ron Sims dares to question the ST2 package orthodoxy and he gets slammed. Just because it's a train doesn't make it an absolute good. And questioning trains doesn't make you anti-transit. Pushing hard for a comprehensive, multi-modal region-wide transportation system should be something that anyone who cares about the environment or transit supports. I'd support the ST2 package as it is, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be made much better or that parts of it couldn't be vastly more efficient. I know, it requires a grasp of nuance - not a strong suit of the knee-jerk trains-at-all-costs folks who like to post here.

@40 - most likely because the flawed GOP-designed RTID only gives him one vote against all the road-building-financed other electeds that weren't going to do it.

The meetings are open you know. You could go too.

As to the ST2 portions - the reality is that the higher-ridership areas are better ROI than the lower-ridership areas. We'd be far better off expanding the system across the lake than extending it south.

You have lived in other cities haven't you?

is sandeep gonna attack sims on this one?

Ron Sims is attacking the "regressive" sales tax but wants to price the hell out of every road? Sounds like someone is getting ready for national office.

Ron Sims now opposes light rail, that's the bottom line here. He supports rail to Northgate, and disconnected stub lines in Tacoma and Everett. Nothing outside of the city limits of those three cities is OK with him. The majority of the region's population--even just its urban population--lives outside of those three cities. The most popular part of the proposed ST2 is the line to Bellevue and Overlake/Microsoft. By opposing any light rail in those areas, Sims is attempting to deal a death blow to regional light rail entirely.

Polling has ST2 losing on its own. Now imagine an ST2 that creates useless lines in Everett and Tacoma *that the locals themselves don't want* and nothing to the Eastside or anywhere in King County but the extension to Northgate. There's no constituency for that--it would fail by 3:1 if it's lucky. He's either caught a fatal case of Seattleitis, or he's jerking people around for some confused notion of personal political gain. This is a man who looked like a visionary on transit six months ago. I can hardly believe it.

I don't *want* the Sims/Sierra Club/CBC version of light rail. It's a blindly shortsighted abortion of a mass transit plan and if ST2 doesn't create a regional rail network I would have to seriously consider voting against it. This just redoubles my dedication to vote through the combined ST2/RTID, which a month or two ago I was seriously hesitant about.

I really don't think this package is going to make that big of an impact on global warming in the grand scheme of things. There are some very big problems that need to be solved there first. China for one, coal/oil/gas power plants for another.... RTID is really pretty miniscule comparatively.

If you want change when it comes to global warming, look to the research in green technology. Much more progressive and likely to solve something than a no-vote on prop-1.

Vote yes! We get 50 miles of light rail out of it and an agency that's accountable for solving our regional transit problems. New roads for the people who want them and new light rail for the people who want it. Makes sense to me!

"@20,
Duh. Of course he voted for it before he was against it.
That's why it's a big deal.
Your point was what?"

Josh, you can't be that stupid.

Sims is a powerful leader serving on a representative board. So do a little homework, and did he make ANY EFFORT to shape this proposal? What did he say when the ST vote happened?

Or did he just vote yes...and go, hmm, now that I think about it....

You like where he is now on this issue. But there's some basic reporting here.

Put down your ideology blinders and hold people accountable. Or do you not care, so long as people agree with your biases?

Grow up.

Will @43:

Yes, I've lived in Boston and DC. Loved riding the trains there, which is why I can't wait any longer for it here.

most likely because the flawed GOP-designed RTID only gives him one vote against all the road-building-financed other electeds that weren't going to do it.

I just can't parse this response at all. Are you saying he attacked rail instead of roads because no one else was attacking rail? And you insist he's still pro-rail?

As to the ST2 portions - the reality is that the higher-ridership areas are better ROI than the lower-ridership areas. We'd be far better off expanding the system across the lake than extending it south.

Nothing is perfect, and we can get both South and East by voting yes this fall. So do you support ST2 by itself, or not?

I certainly never venture much below SeaTac, so I have no particular attraction to that part of the route, but...

Taking the result of quite a bit of process and rejecting it because you think re-injecting it into the same process will produce a dramatically improved product, and discounting the opportunity costs of waiting, just seems foolish.

It's all about the total impact. And the cost per rider per dollar.

Why do you hate democracy so much?

Will,

I think ST2/RTID is typical democracy: various interest groups come together and hash out a compromise that give a little something to everyone.

Your reference to "cost per rider per dollar" seems straight from Sound Politics. You favor rail if it goes exactly where you want to go, if it's "efficient", and it requires no compromises with groups that don't share your agenda. In other words, you're opposed to any real rail program, whether or not it's attached to any roads.

Do you support ST2 as a standalone, or are you with Ron Sims?

Will, Ron Sims attacked light rail in his piece, including light rail to the Eastside. Light rail expansion without a line to the Eastside will have a minimal impact over just completing the promised first-stage line to Northgate. Local lines in Tacoma and Everett that serve a minority of the urban population and prevent the creation of a regional light rail network will be ineffective at best.

You talk about hating democracy but you're the one that is supporting a light rail plan that a majority will oppose even in the unlikely event it gets on the ballot.

How do you expect people to stop driving if you never build rail in the parts of the region where most people drive? People are NOT just going to pack up from Lynnwood and Federal Way and the entire Eastside and move to downtown Seattle where the light rail is. To change behaviors you need to build the light rail to them so that they have alternatives. These are urban areas that are tied to the car, and will be tied to the car, until we build rail alternatives.

Oh, and all those who say we don't need light rail because there's already commuter rail need to look at a map. The two systems serve entirely different areas.

Yada Yada. I don't read Sound Politics.

My point is, you can't even argue it's pro-enviro if you go by the numbers. And then add on ROI, cost per passenger per mile, and throw in a bond structure that means Ron's kids will be retired before it's paid and you're not gonna get anyone's vote unless they're clueless and believe propaganda puff pieces.

Look, we want transit. We'll vote for light rail. But this package is just plain wrong - and you know it, deep down in your heart.

While you talk BC is building hydro dams instead of sitting on their duffs.

While you talk BC is building hydro dams instead of sitting on their duffs.

Where'd that come from? I happen to very much be in favor of hydro, but I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with this package.

My point is, you can't even argue it's pro-enviro if you go by the numbers. And then add on ROI, cost per passenger per mile, and throw in a bond structure that means Ron's kids will be retired before it's paid and you're not gonna get anyone's vote unless they're clueless and believe propaganda puff pieces.

Let's assume quality-of-life issues are irrelevant. Why can't I argue that it's a net plus for the environment? People riding in trains powered by renewable electricity sources instead of driving in cars?

As you know, I took a stab at guessing the GW impact, and it came out that the whole package was probably a net plus. No one's shown me work that would contradict my rough sketch.

I always assumed you were trying to get ST2 separated from RTID so that you could vote for it, but your pro-rail language continues to be so vague and theoretical that I'm not so sure anymore. Are you willing to vote for *this* ST2 proposal, or are you holding out for substantial re-work of it?

Screw transit to the east side, i just want a fast dependable way to get from the central district to ballard.

Hell getting from the central district to capitol hill is insane, requiring a transfer to get from the 23rd and union to broadway and thomas.

Can we pretty please have some fast inner city transit?

Dave what the hell is wrong with you. Transit shouldn't get people around inside dense areas like NY, Chicago, Boston or SF it should be used to go to places like Overlake. It shoulod take less time to get from Redmond to DT than Ballard to Capitol Hill.

MHD - roads + GHG ST2 +GHG for at least 20 years. If they do twice as well as last time they will build 42 miles in 23 years. Please link their GHG data - why wouldn't this package highlight positive GHG effects if they could show them? Bet you can't find anything.

My point is, you can't even argue it's pro-enviro if you go by the numbers. And then add on ROI, cost per passenger per mile, and throw in a bond structure that means Ron's kids will be retired before it's paid

What numbers? You have to compare vs. what would happen without the plan in order to make a valid comparison, and do a detailed analysis of how every part of the project affects emissions compared to doing nothing. You haven't done that and it's dishonest to claim that there are solid numbers backing your guesses.

Similarly, ROI and cost per mile analyses require you both to properly account for costs vs. benefits and select an appropriate case as a basis for comparison. I am aware of no studies that have compared the cost and benefits of light rail from Seatac to Tacoma and then compared that vs. a Tacoma-only expansion that has no connection to the main light rail line. Every credible analysis of rail networks that I've ever seen highlights the value of a rail network over isolated rail lines. Arguably the better comparison is Tacoma light rail vs. Seattle-to-Eastside light rail, since it's the latter option that Sims and the Sierra Club have called into question. I strongly doubt that any route in the region pencils out with more benefit per dollar than Seattle-to-Overlake. That includes any spur lines to Ballard or West Seattle, which are good secondary routes and not high priorities for a regional light rail network.

Anyone who opposes ST2 because it goes to Bellevue instead of West Seattle is blinded by self-interest. Sound Transit is not and should not be an inner city transit system--it's a regional system, because transportation is a regional problem. The only way Ballard is ever getting light rail is if the main spine of the light rail network goes in first, with a spur to Ballard added later to that spine. It's not going to happen any other way.

whatever, from public statements by the Sierra Club, CBC, and now Ron Sims, we know what they oppose and what they support with regard to light rail.

They oppose a line to the Eastside. They favor isolated lines in Tacoma and Everett. The only King County rail they want to add is the line to Northgate that was part of the original light rail proposal. There is no line to Ballard, or West Seattle, or any of the other dense areas in your imagination. The trade-off is light rail in Tacoma and Everett not connected to the central line, OR an Eastside line that serves several major employment and residential centers including the second-largest employer in the state. More people live on that side of the lake and along that line than in Tacoma and Everett put together. Saying that ST2 favors less-dense areas than some imaginary plan that doesn't exist just isn't true. I agree that the Seatac to Tacoma and Northgate to Lynnwood routes would be more useful if they connected all the way to Everett and to key places in Tacoma, and would gladly support an expanded ST2 that added those routes to the central line. But eliminating the central line and eastern line entirely to serve isolated urban lines in Everett and Tacoma? That's ass-backwards at best.

Lets recap Will's positions on this string.

--Favors Elevated Viaduct
--Likes 70% single family zoning in Seattle (cuz the alternative would be 100 story buildings. Guess his concern about global warming has its limits).
--Claims elevated supporters like him made surface/transit a real option, its called "shaping the debate" (because arguing for the worst possible scenario helps?)
--Claims Ron will support ST 2 even though he just criticized the entire package.
--Claims there is a secret plan for a Feb ST vote that can be revealed by a FOIA. (does he know he can do a FOIA?)
--Claims Ron only got one vote on RTID (actually the three county councils voted overwhelmingly for the package, the execs don't vote, but who cares about details)
--Holds up return on investment as the highest rubric to measure transit(despite the fact all transit is subsidized and that the real goal is to influence land use patterns so people can live without the automobile in an urban area?
--Shouts at Ron Sims
--When questioned about his ludicrous assertions, replies in a Bill O'Reillyesque "Why do you hate democracy so much?"
--Attacks the ST bond structure using Kemper Freeman's talking points (despite supporting monorail financing with junk bonds)
--Touts salmon killing BC hydro projects as helping the planet (while simultaneously claiming RTID kills fish)

Does your head hurt from all of the swirling contradictions? Because your posts give me a pounding migraine. Keep it up Will, you are one of the best arguments we have for moving forward in this region. Or we could let folks like you Seattle process this to death until 2050.

I'm guessing you voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 too because Al Gore just wasn't good enough.

Let's recap reality, shall we, t.t.

You can't argue with my points about why RTID/ST2 is bad for the environment.

Ron Sims has joined in.

Now we're waiting for Mayor Greg Nickels to join in on the No side and show his true enviro credentials.

Can't you tell when you're bleeding?

and, @55, @56 - exactly. Double LOCAL Seattle transit. All of it.

Streetcars, light rail, monorail, bus, BRT.

In the dense areas which have a high ROI and cost the least to operate in per passenger trip.

(not in miles per passenger, that's an anti-environmental subsidy to the inefficient suburbanites who don't live close to work)

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/63251/

Dude, what is WRONG with you? Double Seattle transit, and pay for it how? Will, you always find a way to make the Slog look like goofball talk radio.

“I ended up voting for a total rebuild of the Viaduct. But the Surface Plus Transit would have died if myself and other people hadn't kept saying "but the Surface Plus Transit option is a viable choice that is far better than an insane underwater tunnel". Which was then picked up by tunnel people who said the rebuild of the Viaduct was bad but the surface plus transit was better than the rebuild.”

Will disaffected-Asche always loves to take credit for stuff he had little to no involvement with. Which is weird. But then, to say he actually helped the surface + transit option by promoting the Biggest Possible Elevated Freeway Ever Built On a Waterfront Anywhere- that is just plain psycho.

So, Will disAffected-Asche screams about global warming, but pushed for a massive re-built viaduct to kill more polar bears. The whackos are always the most consistent.

And when did you stop fighting light rail, Will? Same time yhour loopy Sierra Club bud Ron Sims started trying to kill rail.

ATTENTION PEOPLE OF THE STRANGER.

Rail is totally stuiid in the suburbs. I know. I'm from Everett. The fastest way to get to Seattle is and WILL ALWAYS BE the bus. It takes ONE HOUR to get from Everett to Seattle on the stupid Sounder, which only stops once the whole way. the bus goes on the freeway and is there in half an hour, maybe forty minutes if there's traffic.. And there's other buses from Lynwood, and from Mountlake Terrace, etc. that also go quickly. So being FROM EVERETT, I say it's a waste of money to build light rail to Everett. Light rail in the Everett Metro area however, would be useful, because transit up here sucks.

Same goes for Tacoma. During rush hour, when busses are slow, there's the train. Otherwise take the bus which is perfectly fast and runs all the time.

And the train's going along the freeway anyway! So it's not like it could possibly have any advantage over an express bus that just pulled over at every few freeway exits. I could at least understand if it served an area underserved by existing transit options.

Also, roads are the devil. I can't believe any of you would be for jillions of dollars in roads.

The train to Bellevue should DEFINITELY go across the 520. They probably just put it on I-90 to get Mercer Island to vote for it. The present system makes transferring totally awkward for 75% of passengers, I'm sure. Who's transfering to go south? nobody. Whereas north is the city, capitol hill, the u district, etc. Also the 520 train could be extended to fremont and maybe magnolia, both of which are currently underserved by both roads and transit.

And talking about it now and doing more work and fixing the problems isn't gonna delay anything, cus they're definitely at least 10 years away from actually building any of this!

RTID as it currently stands is half-baked and encourages both sprawl the continual reliance on cars, both of which will kill transit in the long term.

I am appalled by Ron Sims' decision to oppose Proposition 1. As King County Executive, it is the very core of his job to identify serious regional problems like transportation, and build a consensus behind long-term solutions. Political leaders throughout the region have spent years developing the package of road, rail and other improvements in Proposition 1. The measure offers relief to long-suffering drivers and transit riders all over Puget Sound. Sims apparently was unable to use his position and influence to change the package to his liking, and that makes it all the more irresponsible for him to oppose it.