Or we could just make Seattle a state, and cancel the Deep Bolluxed Tunnel.

But hey, everyone loves austerity, so long as they are Rich or Ultra-Rich. Which is a massive majority of less than 1 percent of the population.

For a second there I thought the Subaru Equity might be a new car designed for equal appeal to men and women, gays and straights.

Goldy, Portland MAX is actually quite useless for getting between the city's urban neighborhoods, such as the inner Southeast or the Alberta area.

It leaves downtown (slowly), crosses the bridge (slowly), chugs through the Lloyd District (slowly), and then jumps on the highway and hightails it out to the suburbs. Same deal in the other three directions.

As with many of our regional-analogy follies, Portland is not the shining example that it is made out to be.

I am currently seeing why this country doesn't work politically.

I live in an area of dense apartments where a lot of lower income and immigrant families live. Many of us walk and ride bikes and take buses as well as cars.

Hence the sidewalks are some of the most used.

The City of Kent wanted to improve one very much used street which has no sidewalks. There are many kids who have to stand waiting for school buses in what amounts to a gravel pit. There is a day care center that sits there like something out of the old south.

The big spenders at City Hall proposed a project that, while a solution, was probably 10 times what was needed and imposed high real estate taxes and created a whole governmental management group. The Republicans, of which I am a member shot it down...the whole thing.

So here's where the system fails. All we needed is was an extra wide sidewalk for both people and bikes. The liberals turn it into a boondoggle. The republicans shoot it down. The end result is the People suffer.

Why do you hate gravel pits so, SROTU? They never did anything to you!

Goldy…much like "objective truth" there is no self-evident "right" policy. The "politics" are everything.

This platonic notion that there's an objectively perfect policy to transportation building and funding that is untainted by politics is the precise trap that many fall into in politics.

What works here is what works. And even you seem to admit that it doesn't work to be naive about the politics of it all.

So, that leaves me scratching my head a bit as to your intention. STB and Dom are arguing that what works is what works, and Ed Murray and you seem to be arguing that "what is perfect is what is perfect."

But, then you hedge your bet and admit that politics matter.

It's all very confusing. And that makes me suspicious.

This election will give us plenty of what I call "Transit Silver Medalists." By which I mean politicians who will tell us they LOVE transit They dream about transit. They advocate for transit. They'll use their influence on behalf of transit. They'll move heaven and earth for transit…

…just as soon as we build all the highway projects we can dream of.

In the end, transit will not be sufficiently built if it is a 2nd priority to highways. And it seems to me, according to the politics of building transit, Murray's position places transit into 2nd place.

Things I also say in the two posts that Goldy quotes me on:

"SAE [subarea equity] will end up working to Seattle’s advantage"

"In fact, a flexible policy within the framework of a subarea rule probably works out best in practice. Voters do seem to show little regional solidarity and resent dollars moving elsewhere. Furthermore, when ST3 rolls around subarea equity may guard against some cynical maneuvers that the ST board could try. It’s best to leave well enough alone."

@7 Yes, and I provided those links. And I also lay out your arguments, if attributing them to Ben and Dom not you.

But the point is, it is misleading to characterize Murray as not having a grasp on the issue—or leave the impression that he is anti-transit (or anti-Seattle)—when STB actually agrees with his basic critique of subarea equity.

Goldy, you frequently complain about the distribution of state funds for schools, roads, etc. (rural counties get back way more than they kick in). Won't exactly the same thing happen to Sound Transit expenditures if sub-area equity is removed?

But isn't there are pretty fundamental difference between agreeing with the *basic critique* of something and agreeing with what to actually do about it?

Isn't that difference nearly the whole ball of wax?

I am sure STB and McGinn and Murray and you and Dom all actually agree with the basic premise that more transit options are good for us. But that's not really the issue here, is it?

@8 I understand the point you're trying to make -- that SAE is far from perfect. But Ed Murray, in context, is not making an abstract statement about defects in SAE. He is saying that Seattle can't afford to go it alone on rail. When pressed on the observation that thanks to SAE Seattle/Shoreline will pay for any such rail in any case, he says that we have to get the money from outer suburbs to properly afford it. It's hard to make a conclusion other than that Ed Murray thinks we can't afford more light rail unless we get more suburbs to help pay for it -- which as you point out, in practical terms means we won't get any more rail.

As to whether or not he has a grasp of these issues - I don't know what's in his heart, and I'd distance myself from Ben's assertion. It's possible he just doesn't want ST 3 to succeed; that he has radically different assessment of regional politics than you or me; or, that he hasn't fully thought through the implications of things he's saying. Ben seems to think it's the third, but I'd say that I don't know. I imagine Senator Murray would argue it's the second.

@9 First of all, I'm not very concerned that we will end up substantially subsidizing the other subareas, because any ST3 measure has to be written to appeal to Seattle voters.

Second, folks consistently misunderstand my stance on the way we broadly subsidize the rest of the state. I'm all for redistribution of wealth. I think we all benefit when we build and maintain a rural Washington that preserves agriculture and agricultural communities. I don't begrudge building the hydroelectric, irrigation, and transportation systems that make their economy possible, and I'd like their schools to be as good as ours, regardless of local property values.

But I do begrudge the lie that the flow of money goes from them to us, and their refusal let us tax ourselves to pay for the infrastructure and services we want and need.

@12 Goldy…it seems to me you're missing the point.

The concern with doing away from SAE is not that we Seattleites will end up footing the bill for Rail in the suburbs, it's that if the suburbs believe they will be subsidizing us, they will not support ST3 at all.

Murray is suggesting that he has the ability, through his relationships, to convince the suburbs to send their money to Seattle to build out rail here.

The question is…do you believe him?

I'm doubtful. Not because I don't like Murray (I do) but because I think that's naive politics.

@12,

I think you're right that it won't be a question of having absolutely no projects in Seattle. However, all the incentives are to build as little as possible in Seattle, as cheaply as possible (say, streetcars rather than real light rail) to give pro-transit voters in Seattle an excuse to vote for it. The real money has to be spent on the perimeter where the swing voters are.

You're wrong on this, Goldy... and admit to it when you agree with the theory that McKenna and other suburbanites put it in place hoping to screw over Seattle.

I, too, think it was a bad policy to implement; but after a few years it's now bad policy to remove it. SAE prevented us from building more quickly inside Seattle, screwing up our system, but it now guarantees revenues freed up to build more inside our City areas. Removing it now simply guarantees more funds go to extending further into the suburbs and building more park-and-rides.

I'm not arguing against more expansion to a broader regional area... BUT the higher ridership and potential to change lifestyles and reduce congestion and auto pollution lies inside Seattle first, not in spreading out to Everett, Tacoma, and Issaquah more quickly. In fact, building lines outwards faster than inwards could actually accelerate sprawl.

It's right there in the name SOUND transit. It's a regional system, as it should be given how the area will grow over the next 50 decades. Believe me, I'd love to have light rail in West Seattle in my life time, but the second the 'burbs think their tax dollars are only going to build rail in Seattle proper, it's game over for ST3. There is no separating policy from politics, one is the product of the other, and in a democracy, you just have to accept that reality and work with it.

@16 has a very good point.

Was just reading today's UW Daily about new transit in Seattle, which would otherwise be used to subsidize the inefficient suburbs.

Yes, SAE may be a dumb idea. But when it benefitted the suburbs and hurt Seattle, it was just "the way things are", and couldn't be changed. Now that it looks like Seatle might, horrors, actually benefit from SAE, then of course we have to get rid of it. So I guess if we want to get rid of stupid ideas, we must find some way to show that they benefit Seattle. My concern with Ed Murray is that he has more loyalty to his Olympia connections than he does to the people of Seattle.

@6, except that Murray has probably built more transit than any other politician in the state over the last thirty years. He won key transit money in the 03 and 05 state transpo package. When it comes to actually building transit, Murray has a better resume than any other mayoral candidate. How much transit money has Harrell or Steinbrueck or McGinn actually generated? Murray has won millions and millions for transit - the other candidates have nothing but rhetoric on their resumes.

The way to allow the city to have a higher investment in transit that is propotional to its level of density and importance to the region is for the state to lift the cap on how much Seattle can finance additional projects above and beyond sub-area equity. Sub-area equity is the political tool that keeps the suburbs on board without making the system entirely suburban. We should keep it, and then have the state give Seattle and other local jurisdictions the ability to supplement regional projects with local projects funded with local money.

If Ed Murray wants to outmaneuver McGinn on transportation, he should be advocating for local funding for additional local projects, planned within the regional context. McGinn is moving in that direction but too slowly. Murray could beat him to it, neutralize one of McGinn's few advantages, and run away with the race. But instead he's playing to relatively conservative, car-centric Old Seattleites.

Again folks, Murray isn't suggesting that we ditch subarea equity and replace it with nothing. He's suggesting we should ditch in favor of a formula that drives resources toward density. Such a formula would inherently protect Seattle's interest.

Second, my main disagreement with Ben and Dom is the way they use Murray's position on subarea equity to categorize him as not having a grasp on the issue. Regardless of whether it inadvertently protects our interests, Murray is right that subarea equity is bad policy. Surely we can find a more rational metric for allocating resources.

@21 You mean he's playing to... the Times?

@22 Why on earth would Seattle give up subarea equity at this point? Neither you nor Murray have actually published an alternative: "density blah blah trust me" doesn't count. It's only a risk to Seattle for Seattle to give up SAE for ST3. If Murray wants to help lift the caps on self-taxation so we can fund our city's projects, then that's worth writing about.

Goldy @22: Again folks, Murray isn't suggesting that we ditch subarea equity and replace it with nothing. He's suggesting we should ditch in favor of a formula that drives resources toward density. Such a formula would inherently protect Seattle's interest.

Goldy, please accept that Ed Murray is smarter about these things than you are. This is a Trojan horse gift to Seattle light rail supporters. He's smart enough to know there's no direct political way to kill light rail expansion. Instead, you've got to figure out how to offer some kind of poison candy so that light rail expansion can be killed from within with its supporters' blessing.

@23 exactly, the suburban market.

Meanwhile, Global Warming is NOW. Not tomorrow.

So, this density-driven formula, anyone willing to expound on that?

Because right now we've got zero information and a "trust me".

SAE is basically the only thing keeping Sound Transit politically viable in the suburbs, and the suburbs won't go for any new density-driven formula if it doesn't let them build massive park & rides in low-density wastelands alongside freeways. Which any serious formula definitely would not.

Also, you say that no ST3 ballot measure can pass without overwhelming support here in Seattle, and that overwhelming support isn't coming for a measure that doesn't lay down track within city limits.

But that's wrong. Seattle will vote for basically any transit package, whether it directly benefits the city or not. Seattle will get a cheap token project, and the Seattle Subway will be dead.

And finally, he's running for Mayor of Seattle, not county exec or a regional office. He needs to be aggressively advocating for more infrastructure money in Seattle, not giving it for free to the region at large.

A mayors job is to fight for the City's self-interest, not the regions.

subarea equity predates McKenna; see the RCW enabling legislation here:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?…. sections 8 a and c are relevant. the ST policy went further and divided King County into three subareas. the basic concept probaby came from Representative Fisher.

@28 "Seattle will vote for basically any transit package" is wrong on many levels.

First, the monorail proves that even Seattle voters have a pain point when it comes to transit. Second, although it may well be easy to get a majority in Seattle, a transit package would have to have overwhelming support from Seattle to bring a measure over the top in the greater Seattle area.