And just like the wars in the middle east...it's just a few years away with "my" plan...just wait a few more years. *sigh*

You talk about leadership and cooperation but lost control of the senate two years in a row and helped rubber stamp all-cuts budgets for 3 while the house desperately pushed the sorts of expansionary policies that get light rail built and services saved. You also have a poor relationship with the vast majority of the grassroots pro-transit community that will do all the heavy lifting in terms of direct advocacy.

If what happened in the Senate and with constituents and activists is any indication, your hopes for working with others has dire implications for Seattle's well-being. You may enjoy titles and power but you have people to help.

As to your analysis of the policy you promote here? There's no analysis, just grim rhetoric and self-serving pandering. Nice try.

Well said! Why anyone would think the brainchild of anti-government Republicans would be good for Seattle or light-rail is beyond me. But I guess if you're a McGinn supporter you need to latch on to whatever you can...

I reestablished the state’s responsibility to provide funding support for public transportation;

That's pretty brave, to lead with a whopper of this magnitude. The state doesn't provide one single dime of direct support for mass transit in the Seattle area.

The reason why people outside Seattle would consider voting for Sound Transit is because there is a guarantee that all the money isn't spent inside the city limits of Seattle. Sorry, there are more people in the Sound Transit service area outside the Seattle City Limits than inside. They mayor of Seattle does not have the power or authority to take our money. (And, this is coming from a Democrat.)

#1 care to explain the "two years in a row" comment? Nod often people confuse Ed Murray and Lisa Brown...

Don't worry though, it's an understandable mistake for someone who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.

Is the implication supposed to be that McGinn could keep Tom and Sheldon from joining their true party? LOL

@5: And it works the other way around, too. You shouldn't be able to siphon Seattle money -- or prevent Seattle from taxing itself at a higher rate to fund more ambitious projects -- simply because you are greater in number (though sparser in placement and with different transportation needs).

It's extremely odd that Murray writes of wanting a policy to ensure "that hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars are not diverted to building light rail in outlying areas", when sub-area equity is literally that policy.

Oh brother.

It's awful nice of the Slog to give Ed Murray a chance to release the longest mayoral race writeup I've seen from him (and widest audience, no doubt) since announcing his candidacy.

Looking forward to the inevitable response from the astute STB. I don't entirely blame Ed for having the opinion he does -- it's a complicated topic. But he's got this wrong. I know it would have been hard (given his personality) to shy away from the kerfuffle on Tuesday, but by the end of this I think he'll have wished he did.

I also think it's cute when Murray puts things like "advancing ST3 to the 2016 ballot" in bold, like it's a new or unique idea and not what McGinn, transit advocates (and other candidates, I'd imagine) already have in mind.

TL DR

Sorry, to me this smells like classic Ed Murray, for anyone who's been following the guy for the last decade:
A. Present oneself as mass transit's biggest friend.
B. Offer up some new proposal that pretends to save mass transit but actually kneecaps mass transit.

Here's the thing. If you take Ed Murray at his word, he's trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. With sub-area equity, Sound Transit already could build an initial north-south light rail trunk between downtown Seattle and Ballard as part of a Sound Transit 3 package. In fact, my understanding is that, to make the different areas' projects balance out, Seattle all but needs to take on such an ambitious project. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

As usual, Sen. Murray says, "Trust me. I know what I'm doing." But time and again, whenever any of his cockamamie transit proposals come under any kind of scrutiny, they get revealed for the Trojan horses they are. Ed Murray is not doing his constituents' bidding. He's doing the bidding of wealthy transit foes like John Stanton.

For the latest takedown, see Ed Murray Throws Seattle Under the Train.

The only trust Ed Murray has earned is the lack of it.

Signed,
Someone who's been commenting on this blog for years trying to call attention to Ed Murray's BS (go to to Search box and look up my handle and "Murray" some time for more)

P.S. Believe me, I'm no Mike McGinn apologist either. But at least with McGinn, I don't have to constantly question whether he's fighting on the same side.

Murray for Mayor 2013: Fuck Seattle's Transit Infrastructure, Let's Build Some More Highways!

Sounds like a good plan to me. Definitely better than the fake bus rapid transit mess which is all our current overlord gave us.

@14 you mean underwater highways.

@6: Lisa Brown was budget chair when the budget coup happened? And majority leader when the majority shifted?

Oh okay, glad to see Murray supporters owning up to this stuff.

You're losing me, man. Hard. I want someone willing to go to bloody war for Seattle interests, not a capitulation. Never give up; never surrender, or never getting my vote.

Funny... before the jump Murray doesn't even begin to talk about his supposed subject -- sub-area equity!

I couldn't be bothered to follow the jump because this alone told me everything I need to know about Murray's position(s); he's clearly more interested in telling you why he should be mayor than offering solutions and the reasoning behind those solutions. (Other than that he should be mayor)

If his writing style is any indication of his governing style, he's already lost my vote!

For the record, this piece completely ignores STB's actual argument about why it's wrong to oppose subarea equity.

The ST board has a majority of members from the suburbs, and will continue to have such a majority until the end of time. Beyond that, the ST board has had a single-minded, tunnel-vision focus on "the spine" between Everett and Tacoma, the Seattle parts of which are already funded, and the remainder of which is entirely in the suburbs.

Thus, what little money the subarea equity policy requires ST to spend in Seattle will almost certainly be redirected to the suburbs if the policy is dropped. Yes, subarea equity is horrible policy in the abstract, but unfortunately it's the only thing protecting Seattle's interests in real life.

Sub-area equity needs to go. Mayor McGinn needs to go. Good thing Burgess is completely irrelevant.

@15, I can see why this sounds like a good plan to you. Your understanding of RapidRide is a good indicator of your grasp of details on this stuff. FYI: RapidRide comes from Metro (not Sound Transit), which is a county agency, and it was proposed (and partially funded and designed) before McGinn had even announced a campaign for mayor.

But details, details...

@21,

In fairness, Murray wants to replace the ST board with a directly elected one, although it's difficult to see how that creates an organization laser-focused on construction in Seattle.

@15, I can see why this sounds like a good plan to you. Your understanding of RapidRide is a good indicator of your depth on transit issues. FYI: RapidRide comes from Metro (not Sound Transit), which is a county agency, and it was proposed (and partially funded and designed) before McGinn had even announced a campaign for mayor. Details, details...

Wow. With all the attacks on Ed here, you wonder why anyone would ever go into public office. I happen to believe him. I've seen him accomplish a lot over the years. What he says here makes sense. The man knows transportation.

Politicians are all about what "I" did. I guess those people that voted them in and donated thousands of dollars would be nowhere without them!

Though I do agree with almost everything Ed Murray says....

I'm still hoping Bruce does a little more to help his chances. No. 1 mistake was not contacting me to help with the campaign.

NotYourStrawMan @26: Wow. With all the attacks on Ed here, you wonder why anyone would ever go into public office. Yeah really, God forbid we plebians should stand up to our overlords. I wonder if you've ever used this sad, little ad hominem defense to stand up for Mike McGinn, considering all the attacks he's been taking. Or are we only allowed to disagree with the politicians that you disagree with?

I can't dispute one statement you made about Ed Murray: The man knows transportation. Kinda like Willie Sutton knew banks. That sadly is the problem.

Did Ed ever fix the cost overrun provision or 520 funding?

It's too bad this can't be an sctual debate about why we don't like subarea equity. Instead, it looks like a petty political shark attack. There needs to be more of a conversation than this "dense verse sprawl" debate. Having a consistant and robust rail system in Seattle helps the whole state. Stop pitting Seattle against the rest of Washington. We all understand this argument when it comes to taxation and distribution. When did all these Democrats become the party of, "I get to keep I what I make?"

Ditching sub-area equity will ensure that Seattle tax dollars are spent building an endless procession of suburban Park & Rides, and that a Ballard line will never be built until every suburban city has a Link stop.

I just love that Ed Murray says that he "...can bring all sides together, diffuse opposition, build a coalition..." He sure did that in the Senate; quite a coalition he built there.

Is he implying that he did that on purpose?

I was looking forward to hearing what Ed Murray had to say about this. It is a complicated topic, and I hoped he would provide an articulate response to the issues raised by STB. Unfortunately, this is not an articulate response. He's so fixated on demonizing McGinn, he never gets around to addressing the specific questions that have been raised.

I have mixed feelings about McGinn, but Murray's attacks sound like exactly the same tune that we've heard from the anti-transit crowd (Gregoire, the Seatttle Times, etc). Not a good way to win the votes of transit supporters. Murray keeps shouting about how McGinn is 'divisive,' but all of the vitriol is coming from Murray.

I'm not all that enthusiastic about McGinn at this point (mainly because of the police accountability situation), and I had been considering voting for Murray. But Murray's response here hasn't been very inspiring.

...while also ensuring that hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars are not diverted to building light rail in outlying areas where population densities are insufficient to support strong ridership.

Why would millions of taxpayer dollars be "diverted" to outlying areas, if the money spent in those areas had to come from those areas in the first place?

Is there some other definition of the word "divert" of which I'm not aware?

So?Together,the Goppers and the Dems comprise the right third of the universal political spectrum. ---- http://www.politicalcompass.org

god,,, arrgghgh.. fuck... just SHUT UP.... you go on and on and on and on and on and on and you say NOTHING IMPORTANT..... SOUND TRANSIT IS OVER PRICED, UNWANTED AND A HUGE HUGE RIP OFF......

Hey Ed

The sub area equity train left the station long time ago. Nice of you to oppose it but you're not going to change it.

Sub-area equity got South King County to pay for YOUR light rail to the airport. You dump your airplane pollution (air and noise) on us southies, who fly lots less than you, and then WE have to pay to get you here so you don't have to shell out for parking. We were supposed to get 5 stations in South King County and 8 miles of track under the original taxing proposal, but got only one station and 6 miles of track; now the politicos are boasting that the 3rd station will be built "early" - 2016 - and media play along, while it was supposed to be built by 2005, a billion dollars ago.

Sound Transit is definitely a scam, and they steal money from whomever then can get it. It's all about taking money from the public; a 10% profit on that much construction enables the contractors to cut some very fat checks to their friends in office. The first vote in 1995 failed, so they focus grouped and polled their way to constructing a proposal that would pass, never mind that both the promised tax amount and project size were lies constructed to fit what people said they would vote for.

You Seattle folks wouldn't have gotten the suburbs' votes, or tax dollars, at all if supposed sub-area equity wasn't part of the deal. Consider yourselves lucky you got what you did from us, and keep your thieving hands to yourselves in the future. Right now we get half the bus service per capita from Metro that you do, despite all paying the same for it, and the fact there are more seats occupied on the average South County bus than on the average Seattle (West Subarea) bus. Not that Metro will tell you that - they have jiggered the metrics so a two block ride downtown has the same value as a twenty-mile commute ride. They also use larger-than-necessary buses in the burbs to reduce seat utilization percentage, which is more important in their accounting system than the number of people on the bus. You won't give us bus service so we eat your lunch in the legislature, siphoning off way too much funding for roads because we don't have bus service. Give us some bus service and we'll need less for roads.