Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Westneat on Sims

1

This is what you get with one party rule. Nobody will call BS on something, even if it is wrong, if someone from their Party wants it. It is the "Thin Blue Line" mentality. Westneat actually calls on Sims to get out of public office because Sims is not going along silently with something that a few dozen politicians previously agreed to! No, Danny, political party peer pressure is no reason to keep silent, or get out of the game.

Look they were making big changes in the terms of this upcoming ballot measure up until a couple of months ago. There were changes in the ST part in May, and in the RTID part in June. The RTID part wasn't approved by the three county councils until June.

Sims had been playing the game of not speaking up for what is right. But all the politicians in this state do that. Now that he isn't, he deserves our respect.

Westneat is way off base to suggest that just because the board of ST and the county councils allowed these particular plans to be put before voters that Sims was remiss for urging they be rejected. Sims has obligations to the people he represents, and he was serving those interests by speaking out. Westneat ignores those higher obligations completely, and that shows how he fails to grasp what leadership should involve.

Posted by Welcome to Washington | October 3, 2007 9:33 AM
2

I think Westneat proved Sims' point regarding why he remained silent for so long quite nicely, actually.

Get in line, or get out! Groupthink at its finest....

Posted by Mr. X | October 3, 2007 9:44 AM
3

Josh, do you have a link to the roads project list?

Posted by Particle Man | October 3, 2007 9:50 AM
4

Particle Man @3,

Here you go: http://www.rtid.org/docs/FINAL_RTIDBlueprint.pdf

Posted by Josh Feit | October 3, 2007 9:55 AM
5

http://www.king5.com/localnews/environment/stories/NW_100207WAB_environmental_roads_transit_TP.130d2f39a.html

Sims also forgets to see the climate change fighting potential of land use shifts around light rail investments.

At the end of the day, the Sierra Club and Ron Sims are opposed to light rail. Why does the Sierra Club keep saying that SoundTransit will be back on the ballot next year without roads when they can't even convince Sims light rail is good.

Oh, wait. That is because the Sierra Club doesn't want any light rail investments outside of Seattle either.

Posted by Enviro's support Roads & Transit | October 3, 2007 10:03 AM
6

The ST2 plan was drafted by K + L Gates and Parsons Brinkerhoff. Enslow didn't have any meaningful input, Sims didn't have any meaningful input, Nickels didn't, and Ladenburg sure didn't.

What happens is the outside consultants draft it up, hand the drafts to staff, staff hands them to the board, and the board rubberstamps.

That is how it ALWAYS works at ST, RTID, SMP, etc.

Posted by Jake | October 3, 2007 10:07 AM
7

In Westneat's story he quotes Sims here:

"Sims says he went along for one reason: human weakness. After all the fighting about light rail six years back, Sims says, he was tired. He could no longer hack the slings and arrows.

"Face it, this is not a town that tolerates dissent," Sims says. "I voted for it because I didn't want the hassle of getting beat up. I didn't want to take one more punch."

This quote is highly illustrative of the political struggle we face in this region. It has been very difficult to build light rail in this area. The region voted it down twice in 1968 and 1970 and it took our regional leaders until 1995 to return it to the ballot. After twenty-five years without a vote it lost once again. It returned in a shrunken down version in 1996 and finally passed.

Sound Transit was created from scratch and like all new entities, especially large ones, it struggled over the first five years. It is basic organizational theory that all groups must go through a process of storming, norming, and forming. The ST board had to learn not to simply trust the staff (a painful lesson that the monorail board learned big time). The staff had to develop the expertise and ability to make more educated projections of what could be accomplished. ST was basically reorganized with new leadership and since that time have delivered Tacoma Link, bus ramps throughout the region, and soon light rail to the airport on budget.

It was a struggle to get there and Ron deserves full credit for his leadership. Of course he is tired. He was attacked on the left by electeds like Nick Licata and Maggi Fimia and also by the Stranger which seemed obsessed at the time with bringing Sound Transit down. On the right Ron and ST were attacked by the roads lobby led by Kemper Freeman and the like. The survival of Sound Transit has never been certain. ST is not popular in Olympia. Each session is faces bills that would hamper its ability to operate. The legislature married roads and transit, decided the taxes we could use, and last session came within a few votes of dissolving Sound Transit and creating a new mega transportation agency to build roads AND transit. State government doesn't build transit. Our constitution forbids gas taxes from being used for transit.

The opponents of Sound Transit know this is their last, best chance to kill light rail. It stretches credibility to believe that if Roads and Transit loses at the ballot, that our divided legislature will simply allow ST2 to return to the ballot unscathed. Especially in an election year for a governor who won by 132 votes on the third recount and a state legislature where Democrats hope to retain and expand the suburban seats they won in 2006.

So, we will start all over. With likely years of delay, our dollars will buy much less light rail. Will the roads in the RTID package go away if the package loses? Not likely. After the defeat of Referendum 51 (which the Sierra Club supported!) the legislature returned with fourteen cents in new gas taxes to build many of the same projects. Each road in the RTID plan has its own constituency that will continue to fight for it. They won't go away, and wishing doesn't make it so. Under the Growth Management Act we have decided where growth will occur in this region. So are these roads enabling sprawl or infill? Remember, they will most likely be built one way or the other.

It has been a brutal struggle to get to the point where we have a chance to build 50 miles of light rail to match the 20 miles we already have planned. If I were king of the world I wouldn't support many of the roads in this plan and I certainly don't support the marriage with transit.

But you will notice that the Sierra Club and Ron Sims don't offer a roadmap for how we develop the political consensus to get a better plan. If you want to throw years of work and compromise out, show us that you have a reasonable chance of getting something better. I don't think you can.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 3, 2007 10:19 AM
8

Josh, you make a good point, but Danny Westneat's argument about timing applies to the roads part of the bill as well. Sims deserves to be dinged for coming out against the roads/transit joint measure so late. It's reasonable for him to be against the ST2/RTID shotgun marriage on principle, but once again his timing is cowardly. The time to start swinging was when the joint bill was being proposed, months ago. Bemoaning that done deal now isn't going to do a lot of good about it.

Posted by Greg | October 3, 2007 10:20 AM
9

Ya I'd say the reaction to Ron's op-ed shows why it was hard for him to break ranks from the "my way (rail) or the highway" attitude. He bought the RTA line in the nineties, he bought Bob White, Paul Bay and Parsons after the 96 vote. He bought Tuck Wilson in 2001. He fought the monorail in support of ST. He watched ST spend millions on PR when projects dear to him for the poor went unfunded.

Exactly when could he have realized that light rail was wasting precious funds and not receive this response? Maggi Fimia campaigned for ST in 96 but when she didn't buy in to the doubling in expense and time, she was marginalized.

Josh he's against this light rail plan. He'd be against it if there were no roads attached. It doesn't do anything for GW and it isn't a good investment for transit. Probably funding the Northgate segment makes sense and that would be better elevated where possible but not the rest. He probably now favors building out the HOV system.

Posted by whatever | October 3, 2007 10:27 AM
10

whatever @ 9 illustrates my point, the light rail Sound Transit haters are poised to kill rail. Who is going to stop them, the Sierra Club?

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 3, 2007 10:34 AM
11

@ 8 - "The time to start swinging was when the joint bill was being proposed, months ago."

The legislature tied the two together during the 2006 session. This past session they made it a single vote (it had been two separate measures, but both would need to pass for either to be enacted).

@ 7 - "If you want to throw years of work and compromise out, show us that you have a reasonable chance of getting something better."

Please. The rough draft of the ST2 ordinance was not even shown to the board before April. Before then there were some general principles, but no details. Do you think all those construction companies are going to let a "do nothing" option prevail? There will be a more-focused, cheaper and better plan out in a couple of months.

Posted by alphonse | October 3, 2007 10:47 AM
12

@10: A good point. The Sierra Club strategy is to join forces with Kemper, Talmadge et. al. and cause light rail to lose at the ballot box for the fourth time in five votes dating back to 1968. The Sierra Clubbers like to "promise" a quick light rail-only revote, but if they cause light rail to tank in this election, they'll have little political power to push for a revote (and, no, flip-flopping Ron Sims won't either). Vote against light rail if you like, but don't make the mistake of thinking there are any guarantees for a revote.

Posted by J.R. | October 3, 2007 10:50 AM
13

I was writing about the light rail part of the plan because that's the part that Sims was instrumental in crafting. He's not on the RTID board that put together the roads plan. I never expected him to support the roads part; what was surprising and new, to me anyway, is that he has been against the light rail plan for a long time. Wouldn't the Sound Transit board have liked to know that its most influential member had major problems with its $10 billion mega-plan? How much courage does it really take to say: "Hey, this rail spur south of SeaTac airport doesn't make sense." I love Ron, but he seems weary of it all. I'm not disputing his underlying criticisms (some I agree with, some I don't.) But the whole thing is like a case study in why we never get anything done around here: Spend three years putting together a light rail plan (unanimously) and then come out and bash it the month before the election, even though you yourself were in the room the whole time. And so we go round and round, accomplishing little to nothing.

Posted by Danny Westneat | October 3, 2007 10:58 AM
14

#11, there will be a watered down, more expensive per mile, and less used plan out in a couple of months if we vote this down.

Vote yes. Don't listent to Sims, because he is tired of standing up for a good, if controversial project, and would rather do nothing at this point.

Vote yes because what would you rather have, 40,000 new cars a day on the current I-405, or 40,000 new cars a day on an expanded I-405? The population is going to almost double in the next 30 years. Let's start accomodating NOW, rather than be buried with congestion! We can even toll it to get some of those unnecessary trips off the road.

Vote yes because we need light rail, and the longer we wait, the longer and more expensive it will be to build.

Posted by Cale | October 3, 2007 10:58 AM
15

correction-
*the longer we wait, the longer it will take to build, and more expensive it will be.

Posted by Cale | October 3, 2007 11:01 AM
16

Danny - I think you're observations are spot on on this. You need to get a blog where we can comment on your articles at your site, not here!

Posted by Daniel K | October 3, 2007 11:16 AM
17

There is no mentality that Ron Sims should leave for not agreeing with light-rail.

If the man is principled, you would think he wouldn't repeatedly vote for something he does not agree with. You would think he would strive to make it better long before writing an op-ed citing its flaws.

Most of his op-ed criticized light rail, its funding, the length of time required to build it, etc. It read to me that the environmentalist angle was not his fundamental point -- mentioned in passing. He supports the 405 expansion and 520 rebuild, last I checked.

Small things nibbled me about his op-ed. He thinks buses are fine and dandy, but there's a rail bias that would affect ridership (+ no right of way + every 30 minutes, not every 15). And he implied light rail over the 520 is worth waiting for, and at the same time -- let's build light rail faster. I agree that it'd be great to build light rail faster, but wouldn't that still be feasible after passing prop 1? Couldn't we focus on getting up to Northgate to the north and Bellevue to the east before handling the to-Tacoma section -- or is there something in Prop 1 preventing that?

I had admired Ron Sims for a long time. And I still admire that he would write an op-ed advocating what he feels is smarter light-rail, faster. But he should have made his plans reality years ago when he was at or near the helm. Now, he wants more process and more waiting -- and apparently freely admits that he didn't want to fight the hard fight at the time.

Should he go? I don't think so, but he should have helped craft a plan that -- at the VERY least -- he himself could support.

Posted by bellevue & belmont | October 3, 2007 11:17 AM
18

I guess it's no coincidence that The Stranger's Slog writers have given coverage for days on end to Ron Sims's anti-light rail, anti-joint ballot Times op-ed and yet not once have mentioned Walt Crowley's pro-light rail, pro-joint ballot Times op-ed. Ron Sims: news. Walt Crowley, just after his death: non-news.

Here's the Crowley op-ed:
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=sundaycrowley30&date=20070930&query=Crowley

Key passage:

With each election, the public has backed a little further away from the automobile-driven imperatives that have shaped our transportation system and patterns of regional and urban development since the First World War. The final fording looms just ahead: the Nov. 6 election on the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) plan for $18-billion-plus worth of transit and highway improvements over the next decade or more.
The RTID package does not satisfy the true believers on either side of the great lanes-versus-trains debate that has divided the region since the 1960s, but its approval would irrevocably tip the balance in favor of transit and other non-ICE Age modes of transportation, such as bicycles, ferries and electric vehicles. Personal transport per se will not cease to exist — it is too ingrained in our culture and economy — but petroleum-powered cars and their insatiable appetite for oil, concrete and real estate will no longer set the pace for future mobility and development.

(Granted, this particular post is precipitated by the Westneat column, but this is far from the first.)

Posted by cressona | October 3, 2007 11:34 AM
19

Cressona,

I'm so surprised you didn't quote this part of Walt's op-ed:

"New lanes only invite more vehicles, and highway capacity (and attendant local streets and parking lots) can never catch up with demand without turning the region into an asphalt desert."

I agree with Walt on this point. That's why I'm voting No on RTID.

I'll take transit, but hold the highways.

Posted by otterpop | October 3, 2007 11:46 AM
20

Otterpop @19, nice job cherry-picking and selectively interpreting Walt's column. You could have done well working for Dick Cheney in 2002 on finding an excuse to invade Iraq.

But I guess this is what passes for political debate these days. And in comparison to this, I have to give Josh Feit and Erica Barnett credit for simply ignoring Walt Crowley's column rather than trying to spin it.

Posted by cressona | October 3, 2007 11:52 AM
21

That reminds me, it appears I know a few people who work at K & L Gates. I'm not surprised by their actions to twist it so that it appears that RTID/ST2 is other than it really is.

In the end, ask yourself:

Will I vote for a plan - with one single up/down vote on my ballot - that increases air pollution, water pollution, ground pollution, global warming emissions, kills salmon and other fish, kills amphibians, kills local plant and animal habitats, worsens the transit/non-transit mix for the region, doesn't fund even half of the 520 bridge replacement, and requires my great-grandchildren to still be paying taxes for this bad idea?

ST 2.1 will be back in Feb 08 and we all know it - in fact, they have documents and have had plans for it as a backup.

Time to wake up and smell the global warming and the bad Republican-created plan that we're voting on.

Sure, you'll hear a lot of ads and spin pieces, most by people who get money or have relatives or close friends who get money from the road building projects.

But you won't see them even start in on the 41 critical bridges that need replacement.

And you won't see high-demand light rail projects in areas that need them.

And you won't see new HOV/transit lanes in areas where they would run at a profit and help with congestion.

So, why are you voting Yes? Because the monied interests who forced two stadiums down your throat said you have to? Even after you voted both down?

Wake up and realize what you're voting on.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 3, 2007 12:16 PM
22

J.R. @12:

@10: A good point. The Sierra Club strategy is to join forces with Kemper, Talmadge et. al. and cause light rail to lose at the ballot box for the fourth time in five votes dating back to 1968. The Sierra Clubbers like to "promise" a quick light rail-only revote, but if they cause light rail to tank in this election, they'll have little political power to push for a revote (and, no, flip-flopping Ron Sims won't either). Vote against light rail if you like, but don't make the mistake of thinking there are any guarantees for a revote.

Two other points to keep in mind...

The only time out of five that this region approved light rail, it was dramatically scaled back from the previous try, and it's hard not to see that the cost overruns that followed were a result of some overly optimistic cost estimates that themselves were likely influenced by the failure in 1995. Also, I wonder if someone else who was around here in the time of the Sound Move initiatives could answer this: if this region had approved the 1995 Sound Move, would light rail still have gone at-grade through the Rainier Valley?

On top of these five light rail votes, we voted five times on monorail. Now, two of the votes were merely to study it. So you could say we voted only three times on monorail. But whaddayaknow, monorail lost only one of those five and that alone was enough to kill monorail.

The point here? The Central Puget Sound metro area has quite a track record when it comes to "all talk, no action" on transit. If I were one of the few Sierra Clubbers who are sincerely interested in seeing light rail return to the ballot on its own and without being carved up like a carcass, I would be sick in the stomach on seeing the nature of Ron Sims's opposition. If he has hurt the prospects of this package, he has damaged far worse not only the prospects of a light-rail-only ballot winning but, more important, the prospects, however dim they were to begin with, of seeing a light-rail-only measure appear on the ballot in the first place.

Posted by cressona | October 3, 2007 12:20 PM
23

Will in Seattle @21:

Will I vote for a plan - with one single up/down vote on my ballot - that increases air pollution, water pollution, ground pollution, global warming emissions, kills salmon and other fish, kills amphibians, kills local plant and animal habitats, worsens the transit/non-transit mix for the region, doesn't fund even half of the 520 bridge replacement, and requires my great-grandchildren to still be paying taxes for this bad idea?

Will in Seattle, I have the answer to your question: yes. You already did vote for such a plan: that massive, new elevated freeway right along Seattle's downtown waterfront that also managed to take money away from the 520 bridge replacement.

Nice work establishing your credibility, my friend. Perhaps you should start posting under another tag.

Posted by cressona | October 3, 2007 12:29 PM
24

Ron Sims dissent has nothing to do with "Global Warming" concerns. That is all just a very convenient excuse. Ron Sims only fronts projects that will in some way enrich him personally. Something changed very recently (don't know what) that shifted things so that Sims won't see any personal benefit from either 405 improvements or light rail expansion. When it really comes down to doing the job Sims really is never at the helm. Case in point...just where was Sims after the Chanukah Eve windstorm last year??? As the county executive he should have been at the forefront of press conferences concerning clean up, repairs, etc..., but there wasn't a peep out of him. There was some excuse about gall bladder surgery, but given what a publicity hog Sims is then it would have been typical behavior that he would have been sending out press releases from his hospital bed. This man is only about himself. Best bet is that he is trying to position himself for a federal appointment through an environmental stance.

Posted by Sweetie | October 3, 2007 12:39 PM
25

Hopefully most of the people Ron Sims was elected to lead will take his advice and vote to reject this particular measure.

If the constituents of "Dave Enslow, the Sumner mayor" want to take his advice and vote yes, that'd be fine too.

Posted by K-Tell | October 3, 2007 12:53 PM
26

@23 - you say that like I didn't realize how tax projects cascade, Cressona. But I do. Which is why the tunnel was an insane plan, in that it would have choked off even more for even less end result.

And the reality is that it's RTID that's in danger, which the RTID/ST2 people try to pretend isn't the case. The ST2 component is quite likely to do very well, especially if we cut out the anti-transit pro-RTID deadwood in Pierce County.

Have you ever had gall bladder surgery, Sweetie? ... didn't think so.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 3, 2007 12:56 PM
27

Global warming is tangential to this debate -- reducing that issue will require wholesale changes at the national and global levels. Our regional leaders should be concentrating their global warming efforts on changing federal policies. If we don't get those changes, whatever we do with transit in Puget Sound will be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The issue here is giving people more transportation choices, which will enable us to better adapt to policy and economic changes that make driving more expensive and less socially acceptable in the future. This package will help do that.

Posted by red herring | October 3, 2007 1:04 PM
28

Will in Seattle:

@23 - you say that like I didn't realize how tax projects cascade, Cressona. But I do. Which is why the tunnel was an insane plan, in that it would have choked off even more for even less end result.

Will in Seattle, if you do understand that funding a new, larger downtown elevated freeway to the tune of $3 billion would have pushed 520 funding further back, then your support for that freeway becomes even more puzzling. And that tunnel? Will in Seattle, something else you must know: that's was a separate ballot question.

So again, Will in Seattle, I have to ask, why do you love downtown freeways and hate salmon so much?

Posted by cressona | October 3, 2007 1:07 PM
29

Will in Seattle @ 26: Thanks for calling us Pierce County residents "deadwood" -- it's very revealing. Glad to know you care so much about giving the people down there options other than driving.

Are you going to solve global warming on your own in King County? Good luck!

Posted by franklin pierce | October 3, 2007 1:11 PM
30

I'm voting yes on this package. Those 50 new miles of rail will connect many of the region's largest and most densely populated population and employment centers. The new lanes on the existing roadways are hardly the environmental disaster some would make them out to be, and much of the road work is long overdue (SR 167 springs to mind).

To those who say the light rail proposal isn't enough, I would respectfully suggest studying the history of the development of any serious rail-based regional public transportation system anywhere in this country or the world. Fully built-out systems don't just spring to life overnight. The New York subway took over 40 years to get to the basic structure it features today, and is still being worked on. Amsterdam's rather limited metro has been a 30 year project and will have its latest and potentially most useful line, opening in 2011. Barcelona's extensive metro system began in the 1920s with the most recent line being finished in 2003. Planning for BART started in the 1940s, with the initial segment opening almost 30 years later; service to the airport on that system only recently arrived in 2004. Seattle's approach here has not been perfect, but this deal is not the stinker its opponents would have it be. It's worth a yes vote.

Posted by kentankerous | October 3, 2007 1:24 PM
31

Thanks for the link Josh.

Also, I would have to agree with Daniel k. in that Danny should if nothing else, have the opportunity to guest post on David Postman's POP. This is an important civic discussion and it id good for us to be chatting it up here but a wider audience is warranted.

Posted by particle Man | October 3, 2007 1:26 PM
32

Will in Seattle--I think #21 is the latest you have posted on a Slog string with your usual mix of personal attacks and wild speculation.

#1 "worsens the transit/non-transit mix for the region"

Explain to me how building 50 miles of light rail when we have none worsens the transit percentage. Should be interesting. Transit is 2/3 of the package and this is by far the biggest investment the region has made.

#2 "doesn't fund even half of the 520 bridge replacement"

That is because it is a fucking STATE HIGHWAY. The state is supposed to pay to maintain our state highways, the region is supposed to pay for extras. You don't get that you pay taxes to the state for highways and that you would pay even more if the region let the state off the hook. You should remember this from your campaign for an elevated viaduct. The RTID contribution of almost a quarter pays for the transit/HOV lanes, not the GP lanes. So that would generally be viewed as a "good road"

#3 "ST 2.1 will be back in Feb 08 and we all know it - in fact, they have documents and have had plans for it as a backup."

You make this claim, yet despite repeated requests you refuse to provide any evidence. There is plenty of evidence that a 2008 vote won't happen. Put up, or shut up.

#4 "But you won't see them even start in on the 41 critical bridges that need replacement."

Last week your talking point was 34 bridges. You don't even know what they are. And you don't know what local governments have already planned for their replacement. The plan fixes the worst bridge in the state--the South Park bridge which is incredibly important.

#5 "And you won't see high-demand light rail projects in areas that need them."

You have called several times for an investment that would double rail in Seattle and you have stated that most rail outside of the city is a waste of money. Two things come to mind. One, why would the entire region pay for more rail in Seattle. Right, they wouldn't. So how will you pay for this. Secondly, your support for Seattle's 70% single family zoning makes this hypocritical. The idea behind building rail is to help create dense neighborhoods throughout the region. Development will create demand.

#6 "And you won't see new HOV/transit lanes in areas where they would run at a profit and help with congestion."

Like where? 520? Oh yeah, the plan pays for those. The valley freeway? Oh yeah, the plan pays for those. I-5? Oh yeah, the plan pays for several HOV improvements.

Keep it up Will, you are exhibit A in why we need to stop fucking around and build light rail.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 3, 2007 1:44 PM
33

Come on folk. Just use the bus - we dont need any trains.

Posted by Ron Sims | October 3, 2007 1:45 PM
34

You know, Will, you keep talking about astroturfers stumping for Proposition 1. Do you actually have evidence? Or are you just trying to discredit people who disagree with you? Say... I don't suppose there are any plants agitating against roads and transit, are there?

Posted by Greg | October 3, 2007 1:59 PM
35

Spend the money. Build light rail. Improve 405 (it ain't gonna fix itself). And invent my hydrogen car!

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | October 3, 2007 2:02 PM
36

Yes, @ 32, the state is supposed to pay for 520, because it is, as you so gently put it, a “fucking state highway.”

Why then are we being asked to pay even a red cent for this? The reason, as you well know, is because it is more likely that elephants will dance the mambo in Pioneer Square wearing pink tutus before the state will pay for the “fucking state highway.”

If, on the other hand, we simply *replaced*, rather than *expanded* 520, funding wouldn’t really be a problem.

Let’s be realistic here: Kemper Freeman will be more than happy with the roads portion of this plan. It’s hilarious to see the same people who’ve been in bed with him for a long, long time criticizes the Sierra Club for “getting in bed with Kemper Freeman.”

Some of you have been in there with him for some time now.

Posted by BB | October 3, 2007 2:29 PM
37

Tiptoe - the pro ads say that all money stays where it's raised. Are they lying or is Seattle paying for all the expensive rail in the city. This isn't a question directly related to your above comment but a pro theme that if we were to only expand to Northgate, as an example, that would be all on our dime. It is implied that under this vote Seattle isn't paying all the expensive in-city costs.

Posted by whatever | October 3, 2007 2:33 PM
38

Ron Sims is full of crap on the utility of the south leg of ST2, BTW. You can see a map of ridership on page 14 of this ST study, which shows good ridership all the way down to Tacoma, even at the end of the line it has more than twice the ridership of a Ballard-Fremont-QA line, more than the Redmond line, more than an Issaquah or Bothell line.

We are poised to outdo Forward Thrust, to rebuild the Interurban, to build a spine of rapid transit through the entire region, and it makes NO sense to throw that all away over a 12% increase in freeway lane miles, amost all of which serve the existing urbanized zone.

If Ron were serious about congestion pricing, he'd be supporting RTID and pushing the 405 funding to an HOT/BRT center roadway.

Posted by Some Jerk | October 3, 2007 2:49 PM
39

38, thanks for the study link - on skimming, it's a good refutation of the Sims argument. When the Sound Transit Board was deciding between the three levels of investment for Phase II, Pierce County Executive Ladenburg was pushing for the largest light rail investment because he was more ambitious, and wanted to connect the Seattle/Tacoma lines so light rail would be more of a real system than a toy one.

Sims has some interesting points, but Westneat is correct that he should have been discussing them earlier in the process, when something could have been done about it. He's the executive for the largest county in Washington State - he has some influence here. Why not use it earlier in the process?

That said, I'm still up in the air on this one. I would have less investment in all-purpose lanes and focus on freight mobility, perhaps freight-only lanes. All-purpose lanes can have a short-term benefit to freight, but soon those get clogged up also as people use their vehicles more. It's a gamble either way - do you watch this fail and wait until ??? to get an isolated ST vote?

18, 19, 20 - another key excerpt from Crowley's support of the package:

"Passage of the roads-and-transit plan will not instantly unclog highways nor usher in some modern version of a 19th-century City Beautiful utopia overnight. It will, however, mark a tipping point not unlike the predicted thawing of the polar ice caps, a one-way threshold of no return. We will always need roads and highways, but once the momentum of transportation investment steers away from the gas-powered automobile in favor of transit and other alternatives, there will be no going back."

Posted by Ebenezer | October 3, 2007 3:25 PM
40

whatever @ 37

Not sure I really understand your question. But Sound Transit has subarea equity. There are five subareas--North King (basically Shoreline and Seattle), East King (everything to the east including Renton), South King, Pierce County, and Snohomish county. So Seattle's dollars pay for the North Link extension and the First Hill streetcar primarily.

So I don't see how anything else is implied. What opponents don't get is that each region decided what was important to them. Pierce wants to get to the airport--they know what is most important to them--even if the Sierra Club thinks they know better.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 3, 2007 3:26 PM
41

LOL, tell Pierce when they get the density, we'll talk.

Until then, hybrid bio-diesel bus service is the most reasonable solution down there.

Maybe if they converted some existing highway lanes to HOV/transit we might have more sympathy for them - but not until then - we have been doing that using a lot of county and city money and they fought us on that.

I have no sympathy for them.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 3, 2007 3:38 PM
42

Will insulated in Seattle says: "I have no sympathy for them."

That's a revealing statement. For you, the 5/6th of the metro area who don't live in Seattle deserve their fate because they didn't choose wisely. But if you really want to change how people live and how much GHG pollution they generate, you need to get as many of those 5/6 out of their cars as you can.

Sound Transit 2 expands the existing commuter rail system for the less dense eastern parts of King and Pierce counties, and connects the dense areas of Tacoma with the airport and the Seattle-area part of the system. Ridership projections show that this will attract more riders than any potential rail project that isn't part of ST2. This will allow the thousands of Tacoma to Seattle commuters to leave their cars at home. In the long run, it also creates more desirable areas for dense urban redevelopment near the rail line. This is good for the region and what the people of Pierce County want, and they're the ones paying for the projects in their sub-region. What would you do with that money instead? Add more greenhouse-gas belching buses? Well, ST2 funds bus improvements too.

What you seem to want is for Tacoma drivers to be taxed for light rail in West Seattle or Ballard that will be less efficient and do less to provide GHG-neutral alternatives to the current highway system. You think that somehow people in Tacoma will vote to pay for your system if a revote is even possible? That's GWB levels of delusional, and it's self-centered politics at its worse. You might as well be Tim Eyman whining about how every possible tax is an infringement on your assumed right to get everyone else to pay for your lifestyle choices. Indeed, the No voters on Prop 1 all seem to be motivated by extreme self-interest and localism, to the detriment of society, the region, and the planet.

Posted by Cascadian | October 3, 2007 4:11 PM
43

Gee that's nice, Cascadian.

Too bad you've now got Bill Virgin at the PI weighing on this issue today.

This is your brain.

This is your brain on drugs voting Yes for RTID/ST2.

Any questions?

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 3, 2007 4:44 PM
44

Will in Seattle,
You (liek Cascadian pointed out) have unwittingly shown your true colors and reasons for not supporting this. You, like most other Seattle elitists want Seattle to be the center of all WA universes.
Just get out of your mom's attic and take a peek outside. There is a whole world around you.

Posted by Will in Tacoma | October 3, 2007 4:51 PM
45

Will in Seattle While I appreciate your efforts in writing to these blogs you are causing more harm than good without realising it. We cannot show that we dont care about Pierce county when we say no for transit to the south side.
So can you restrain yourself from such comments?

Posted by Mike. O.B | October 3, 2007 4:54 PM
46

Question? KC Executive Sims is under attack for opposing Prop One.

Why don't we question Pierce County executive John Ladenberg's loyalty, when a few months ago right before the final ST/RTID vote, Ladenberg threatened to RESIGN as Chair of Sound Transit if RTID didn't add back his pet $600 million highway project, the crossbae highway. Where was his loyalty, why didn't anyone suggest if he was so attached to a project with so many developer dollars behind it, that maybe he needed a time out?

Ladenberg tells us he got the support of King and Snohomish county to put it back on, despite united environmental opposition to the project. Maybe this is some of the pressure Sims was alluding to that he is tired of.

If Sound Transit chair Ladenberg runs for another elected office and doesn't get his way next time, will he threaten to resign that post as well?

I'm voting NO and think we'll get another shot at getting ST approved. Sims has my vote too..

Posted by Just the facts ma'am | October 3, 2007 5:18 PM
47

Thanks for making my point about Pierce, J.t.f.m - look, I'm just saying they created this mess. Sympathy is the last thing they'll get from me.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 3, 2007 6:00 PM
48

Yeah, Will don't let people know that the Sierra Club doesn't care about what the people of Tacoma want in the ST2 package.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 3, 2007 6:01 PM
49

Tiptoe thanks for the response - I did know about the sub-area but was asking about some pro posters contentions. I wanted to clear up for all that Seattle is paying for the city rail under the current vote as they would if a smaller package came back with the connection to Northgate. It is my impression that some pro posters have been implying that the current vote moves money from other areas to finish the rail to the Snohomish line. Not a big deal, once again thanks for the response.

Posted by whatever | October 3, 2007 6:03 PM
50

"Too bad you've now got Bill Virgin at the PI weighing on this issue today."

Will@ 43: Virgin thinks RTID is just fine. He's slamming light rail all over the place, saying shuttle buses are the best way to do mass transit.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/virgin/334080_virgin04.html

Can't you find a better source to attack Cascadian with?

Will shuttle buses save your fish, amphibians, polar bears and seals?

Have you no shame?

Just wondering.

Posted by BillyBob | October 3, 2007 6:40 PM
51

"Why don't we question Pierce County executive John Ladenberg's loyalty, when a few months ago right before the final ST/RTID vote, Ladenberg threatened to RESIGN as Chair of Sound Transit if RTID didn't add back his pet $600 million highway project, the crossbae highway"

JustTheFacts @ 46: Resigning is a lot more honorable than completely reversing yourself, contradicting yourself, and spending more time and effort slamming the green side of the package than the cement-colored side.

"Ladenberg tells us he got the support of King and Snohomish county to put it back on, despite united environmental opposition to the project."

Huh? Wasn't Tahoma Audubon first to raise their concerns over cross-base? And aren't they now endorsing?

JusttheFacts, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Posted by BillyBob | October 3, 2007 6:50 PM
52

"I'm voting NO and think we'll get another shot at getting ST approved. Sims has my vote too.."

So, JustTheFacts, you both support and oppose the Sims position. That makes a lot of sense.

Posted by BillyBob | October 3, 2007 6:52 PM
53

As one commenter referred to, its critical to change Seattle from 70% single family zoning. This is how our area differs from European cities that have meaningful rail systems.
More housing in Seattle and more jobs in the denser, inner suburbs.

Posted by Dave Moore | October 3, 2007 7:21 PM
54

Mike O.B. @45:

Will in Seattle While I appreciate your efforts in writing to these blogs you are causing more harm than good without realising it. We cannot show that we dont care about Pierce county when we say no for transit to the south side.

Mike's right. The Sierra Club needs to show they do care about Pierce County when they say no for transit to the south side.

I mean, if Seattleites like the Sierra Club leadership are going to maintain they know better than Pierce County how Pierce County should spend its own tax dollars -- if they're going to say that Pierce County isn't good enough for grade-separated, regional light rail -- then they should at least do so in a caring and compassionate way.

With this in mind, I think it's important that the Sierra Club's motto for Pierce County--"Let them ride buses"--not be said in a condescending and demeaning tone. Y'know, like it's coming from Marie Antoinette.

Posted by cressona | October 3, 2007 8:01 PM
55

Cressona - odds are with ST's history Tacoma is is no danger of getting rail with or without a yes vote. Once again the vote will not require ST to complete any particular part of the advertised route. They don't even have to build rail - they could do ferries or maybe even build a bridge.

Am I wrong Cressona? Please what part to they promise?

Posted by whatever | October 3, 2007 9:22 PM
56

Here's my theory on Ron: This so-called last minute change of heart rings false, as Westneat's column illustrates. If this is not a demonstration of conscience, then it must be a political ploy. So what kind of ploy could this be? A power grab seems like the obvious answer, but how?

Here's how it looks to me: His bogus attack and ambush on Sound Transit at the 11th hour is a calculated effort to: (1) defeat the ballot measure, because (2) with his aid, the need for a regional transit system is now called into question for real (in a way it is not with anti-rail zealots like Kemper or anti-roadsters like the Sierra Club). This means that (3) the folks in Olympia, like Ed Murray, who are thirsting for governance "reform" that dismantles Sound Transit will have a better chance of taking it apart, meaning that (4) the light rail system currently under development will naturally fall into Metro's hands, (5) making Ron the big cheese once again.

Posted by Ken Moore | October 3, 2007 10:09 PM
57

Whatever @ 55:
Straw man and you know it.

Posted by Dono | October 3, 2007 10:18 PM
58

Dono - 'strawman' is about as good as it gets for a whatever comment.

These swerving (I mean REALLY swerving) critics are pure rhetoric, 24x7.

But the mastermind of the anti-Roads & Transit set is still Will In Seattle.

Behold, his magic, from the second to the last time Will represented the essence of stereotypical Sierra Club flakiness (make sure you read each word):

Letters to the Editor

Aug 01, 2002

To the Editor:

We have come to a crossroads.

Those of us who are of Seattle, who vote in Seattle, who pay taxes and MVET in Seattle, who stand by our words and our names, know who we are.

We support the monorail.

The people, the voters, the citizens of this fair city of Emerald Green, know us and know our actions are not merely words.

Now that the monorail is REAL, now that the Powers That Be, the Builders Of Roads, the Politicians who bleed us dry to subsidize the suburbs, realize that-now they will come, wearing sheep's clothing over their wolf skins, pretending to be Seattleites.

They will naysay the monorail.

They will lie, cheat, steal - whatever it takes to line their pockets.

We Seattleites, we of the Dream, we of the City, we who are here now, then, and in the future-we shall unmask them.

They will post emails and not own up to their names-because they know that, should the public find out their true identities, they will turn from them in revulsion, recognizing the anti-Seattle wolves that endanger our fair city.

They will send letters to the editor and they shall all but a very few have home addresses that are not in Seattle-because they are not one of us, they are the very forces that attack our city, jealous of our fame, jealous of our foresight, trying to bleed us dry of our resources, of our infrastructure, realizing that if we in Seattle cease to subsidize their wasteful ways they must pay the piper.

They shall fail-for we shine the very light of truth and justice upon their cloaked faces and reveal who they are.

The time approaches for the vote-the time when our allies and our enemies shall be counted-and the only criteria is what they DO, not what they say.

There are no "But"s from those who support the monorail-we know that this is a process in which compromises will be made to help all the city and that the final monorail will meet many of our needs, desires, and wants, but not all. For there are as many opinions as there are citizens.

A citizen stands true to his or her city.

A citizen stands for truth.

A citizen stands for justice.

A citizen supports the monorail.

The time of counting has begun, and those who try to pretend they are your allies while sticking the dagger in your back-they are not one of us, no matter how much they doth protest.

Seek the truth. And be not dissuaded by the lies, by the craven misrepresentations of those who endanger our city.

Stand for justice and hold true to the shining city of Seattle.

Will Affleck-Asch

my name is my bond
and my city is Seattle

Posted by LovinWillAffleckAsch | October 3, 2007 11:07 PM
59

Actually, I don't mean to come down too hard on Will.

It's actually Sims staffer Welcome to Washington @1 who personifies the anti-RTID "movement for a month".

Behold HIS mushy poetry:

"Sims had been playing the game of not speaking up for what is right. But all the politicians in this state do that. Now that he isn't, he deserves our respect."

For what is right? Bashing on specific light rail plans, and holding roads projects harmless (except for the most generic of terms) is now deemed some kind of moralistic righteousness? This cult of personality is getting smaller by the minute.

"Westneat is way off base to suggest that just because the board of ST and the county councils allowed these particular plans to be put before voters that Sims was remiss for urging they be rejected."

Only in Washington, if Sims had raised his anti-rail "concerns" 1 month, 1 year - or 5 years ago, he might have been taken seriously. But this was a cheap political stunt, through and through.

If everybody elected official randomly 'went their own way' on their own private self-absorbed schedules, democracy would break down in short order. Go ahead and pretend Sims - the seasoned politician for life - was some kind of victim of evil oppressive consensus...but that consensus is actually what gets things done, and serves the needs of the general public. Personal vendettas and self-absobed personalities accomplish jack squat.

It's no wonder Dori Monson was the first guy to give Mr. Sims a big 'ole hug. The fact Sims had rolled out his personal 55% pavement 'Roads and Transit' plan 3 years ago didn't help his cause. Or yours, Only in Washington.

"Sims has obligations to the people he represents, and he was serving those interests by speaking out. Westneat ignores those higher obligations completely, and that shows how he fails to grasp what leadership should involve."

Well, when I look at the polling within King County, I see 80% support for the electric light rail line Sims wants to replace with his crawling diesel buses. I also see that Sims' Congestion Pricing plan scores rock bottom. So, Sims Staffer @ 1, could you tell us how giving people what they really, really don't want is a good example of "representing our interests."

And if Sims was really serving "higher obligations" (sure you don't mean "higher power?") what was he thinking when he shifted all of Seattle's new bus service out into the 'burbs, so we Seattleites could watch full buses go by our stops without opening their doors, while plateau riders get a couple seats to themselves at rush hour? Think Sims was "doing the right thing" then? Bucking the establishment? No, he was sucking up to the suburban establishment doing a little dance called "compromise". Look into it. Indeed, if Sims hadn't sold us all down the river (see McIver column today) some time ago, he wouldn't be so worried about preserving his sales tax capacity for a number of other King County "needs", not the least of which is sustainng that massive bureaucracy.

The reason Westneat's column pissed off the (shrinking) Sims inner circle is easy to figure out: Westneat was politely telling Sims something he probably knew deep down inside: it was time to hang up the towel a while ago.

Too bad Sims' wife didn't help our County Executive do some self-realization on that subject.

Posted by LovinWillAffleckAsch | October 4, 2007 12:27 AM
60

"If everybody elected official randomly 'went their own way' on their own private self-absorbed schedules, democracy would break down in short order." - Yes one must follow the dictates of the inner sanctum.

My understanding is that our bus hours are going to run SLUT, another miracle rail project.

Dono you really think it is not substantial that ST can do almost anything with the money they want? If it passes and Sims' new board builds Rapid Bus because it is "discovered" that rail can't practically go over the floating bridge that wouldn't be an issue for you.

As I understand it the roads have to get voter permission to go 20% over budget although I don't have a link to that but ST has no revote possibility no matter what happens.

Posted by whatever | October 4, 2007 6:56 AM
61

@59

You don't get out to the suburbs much, do you? It's a wasteland. Except for places like downtown Kirkland and Bellevue, buses are so scarce that even with the expanded routes, they're still nowhere near as convenient to use as they were before I-695.

Posted by Greg | October 4, 2007 8:36 AM
62

Dono the more I thought about your calling my challenge to Cressona a straw man the funnier it became. Are you saying that I'm making up the promise of 50 miles of light rail? Will this be another case that after the vote the rail touters will say that's not what we voted on, that was just the campaign, read the small print, etc.

Maybe the $150 billion number is more significant than I had thought.


A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Posted by whatever | October 4, 2007 8:55 AM
63

Dono calls it a straw man because all evidence points to the fact that Sound Transit has dramatically improved since its early days. It is dishonest to pretend that they haven't improved. ST is the most heavily audited agency in the state and by all accounts their planning is sound.

Haven't you changed since you were young?

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 4, 2007 11:34 AM
64

"If it passes and Sims' new board builds Rapid Bus because it is "discovered" that rail can't practically go over the floating bridge that wouldn't be an issue for you."

Uh, whatever, we know you enjoy basing all your opinions on mindless mythology, and we know you're proud of your ignorance...but this statement really sets a new low standard, even for you. Last year, Sound Transit completed three years worth of analysis on just that subject: and all parties (including Sims) determined light rail would work just fine on the I-90 bridge. That work was preceded by 30 years of analysis, and a bridge which was actually built to carry rail.

Analysis - which I understand Sims also signed off on - showed the so-called 'Bus Rapid Transit' option DID NOT work, unless massive ramps were built, costing just as much as light rail. Those who actually care about the facts behind the rhetoric know BRT would work just fine on the center roadway, but the real problem was dumping thousands of buses on already jammed Seattle, Bellevue and Redmond streets.

Short version: whatever whaterver says is probably wrong. But we can never know whether he's lying or just stupid: whatever never actually tries to support his dumb claims with any factual information.

"Maybe the $150 billion number is more significant than I had thought."

Yeah, whatever. Especially since the State Treasurer - a critic of large, out of control projects - called Kemper Freeman's figure "bogus."

Keep digging you hole, guy.


Posted by LovinWillAffleckKnedlik | October 4, 2007 12:09 PM
65

One more 'blast from the past' - back when the axe-grinding cranks and disgruntled whiners actually had something to SUPPORT: monorail!

Will in Seattle, circa 2002

The facts are that you can build a monorail line for less than half of one new lane of highway, and carry more than four times as many people at peak commute time, and ***at about one-eighth the taxpayer subsidy that light rail on the same line would cost (plus, it doesn't pollute, unlike cars and light rail or commuter rail).***

Will Affleck-Asch
Seattle


I think the next route to be built would be a route from Ballard to the UW to Sand Point Way, with some minor additions to the first Green Line (Ballard to Seattle Center to Downtown to Stadiums to West Seattle) as well.

***My guess is we'll see 50 percent federal matching funds from the first line completion, 25 percent state funds (only for the specific state needs detailed below, however), and this will allow 175 percent build. Timing probably in 5 years, near a market and business cycle peak.***

The route I think will be built would be as follows:

A. completion of Ballard and 85th to NorthGate line (state and federal matching, since it hooks up to regional and federal needs)

B. spur of Ballard and 45th to Commuter Rail station at the Ballard Locks, with extension to the port - mostly city and some federal match, no state match.

C. spur of West Seattle to Fauntleroy Ferry Docks - federal, state, and city funds

D. main line of Ballard at 45th to Fremont (probably 36th, station to be built next door to me as personal afront by vindictive planners so that I get all the sight and sound impacts of a station, since I'm between 36th and 39th, but I deserve to eat my own dogfood don't I) to Wallingford (via 40th or 39th) to UW to UW Village to Sand Point Way. Mostly city funding, with some state and federal for UW portion.

E. spur line from UW to I-520 station to connect to I-520 rebuild (if it ever happens) - city, state and federal funding.

Will Affleck-Asch
Seattle

Posted by LovinWillAffleckKnedlik | October 4, 2007 12:13 PM
66

LWAA/TipToe

My are you boys getting just a little testy or what? Is the polling turning bad?

ST has built the same escape Res. 75 language into this vote. The board can change what they do for basically any reason. The switch to BRT was just an example of what might be possible. The first engineering company hired by ST said LR on the bridge would be problematic so they were fired. But once again I'm not making that specific prediction.

What proof do you need? Do you doubt that ST will have the discretion to do almost anything?

Posted by whatever | October 4, 2007 2:02 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).