Comments

1
Dems, listen to Dow.

Allowing Sound Transit to go to voters for the full funding authority it wants, and not less, should take priority over carbon fuel efficiency standards. If Democrats pick a fight over those fuel standards and are willing to shortchange Sound Transit’s request, they’ve got their priorities backwards. And that’s true even from a carbon reduction standpoint.

All this said, I am encouraged. Not too long ago, people in the know were figuring there was no hope that the legislature would let Sound Transit go to the ballot in 2016—that this was all just a trial run for 2020—but now it’s looking like ’16 is a distinct possibility. Or am I missing something?
2
This is crap, but because of the way that Olympia works (or doesn't work) it may be the best we can get. Here is a breakdown of the major projects, as I see it:

Maintenance — Fine, sounds good.

Clean Transportation and Multimodal — Looks good as well.

Local Distribution — OK

520 Completion — Sounds good. You have to finish what you started.

I-405 Corridor Completion — Maybe. This could improve the transit/carpool experience.

395 — If this is what the east side of the state wants, I’m OK with it.

509/167 — Terrible idea. Another huge amount of money with very little to show for it.

Other, much smaller projects — This could be excellent (spend a bit of money for great results).

The 509/167 project is a terrible idea. It is completely unnecessary, and is simply a sprawl inducing mess. It isn't hard to see how this was proposal came about, and the political thinking behind it. Propose a bunch of new roads in swing districts (suburban mostly, but also areas like Spokane) and you get both parties to support it (for fear of losing seats). But it really isn't bi-partisan. A bi-partisan bill would encompass the best thinking from both parties. Take the fiscal responsibility ethos of the Republicans, along with the environmental leanings of the Democrats, mix in some moderate sensible planning, and you come up with a proposal that emphasizes maintenance over freeway expansion. We could spend a lot less and get a lot more.

Meanwhile, this would become law, but the Sound Transit area has to actually vote and approve new transit. Depending on which bill is approved, we might not even be able to vote on as many proposals as Sound Transit wants. So, basically, the state will fund a lot of new roads (without a vote) but ask folks here to approve new transit (with a vote). Oh, and the voting is tied to "subarea equity", which will make it extremely difficult to pass. In other words, even though Seattle pays for every dime of every project that includes Seattle, it can't just go ahead and vote for it (the votes are tied to other subareas, and their votes).
3
Sub area equity ended in 2014, and now busses on the Eastside are almost half of what they were two years ago. Sub area equity is all that ensured suburban areas that they would get Sound Transit and Metro Transit routes in their neighborhood.
I understand Seattle needs more transportation infrastructure and dollars than outlying areas. I understand Seattle makes more money than the suburbs. That's still no excuse to starve the suburbs for transportation dollars. Actively antagonizing the Seattle/suburb divide like this serves nobody in the region. It is petty, vindictive, uncalled for, and destructive to the transit infrastructure of the RTID.
ST serves more than just Seattle. Amazing, I know.
4
@3: Sound Transit subarea equity has not ended. Though as it happens, the agency used to a loophole to raid a few hundred million from Seattle for Bellevue's future downtown tunnel. Sorry if the truth defeats any "Seattle leeches" narrative.

Metro has never had formal subarea equity, though it has long attempted to weigh subarea tax collections, fare revenues, and service needs in a way that roughly balances out as if there were. The simple fact is that Seattle voted for more (and better implemented) bus service, while the suburbs voted for cuts. This is called "democracy".
5
@2 - huh? How is an extension of 167 from Puyallup to the Port of Tacoma a sprawl inducing mess? It's a road largely in a heavily urban/industrial area designed largely to help move freight more efficiently.

The Summer/Auburn/Kent/Renton/Tukwila valley is one of the largest commercial distribution areas in the country. Much of the goods coming in there comes from the Port. Allowing goods to move faster from the Port to distribution centers will help make this area more competitive for shippers. There is a massive amount of business occurring in that area. Have you ever been there?
6
To follow d.p. @4's response to libertine @3--libertine, you're confusing the Sound Transit region's subarea equity with King County Metro's dropping of its old 40/40/20 rule. Two totally different things. Subarea equity is still in effect, even if, as d.p. points out, some horse-trading still goes on, as it should.

And Ross @2 has this to say about subarea equity: Oh, and the voting is tied to "subarea equity", which will make it extremely difficult to pass.

Sound Transit has managed to win ballot measures before with this arrangement, most recently in 2008, so I have confidence that they can craft packages that meet each subarea's wishes and put together a 2016 measure that will win. But really, what's your alternative? Holding out for a change in ST's governance structure? Neither ST nor any of its most ardent advocates nor folks like Seattle Subway is making that an issue, so I don't quite get the point of this complaint, unless you're just doing some unasked-for concern trolling on ST's behalf.
7
#4, apparently you haven't been paying attention or reading the awful Seattle Transit Blog. They not only announced the end of sub area equity but printed interview excerpts from ST spokesman Geoff Patrick detailing the death of sub area equity back in August of 2014. In fact, here's a quote just for you.

"Board members can define equity in whatever fashion they believe serves constituents."

Sub area equity is a buzzword joke. It died when Metro canned it, and ST stopped even paying lip service to it back in fall of 2014.

Metro not only had sub area equity, but had a superior version of it than ST. IIRC it was called the 40-30-30 rule, or something to that effect. Again, the moment it was removed, all transit outside of Seattle was cut. Thank you for the precise numbers, #6. Now if only we can get 40/40/20 back and implemented in ST as well as Metro.

Income redistribution and funneling suburban taxes (look at the size of the RTID vs. the service levels it provides in some of those areas) to the urban core is on no way "democracy" and I cringe to think what kind of person would view things in such a way.

#6, my alternative would be to remove ST as an agency completely, and using that saved administrative overhead combined with the already administratively bloated local transit agencies to give this region the transit it is both paying for and deserves.

Metro, PT and the like can do an infinitely better job than ST. The Stranger did a better job than ST during the first Sound Move votes. Elementary school children playing Simcity can design a better light rail system than what we have now.

My post is in direct reaction to #2's comment that voting is tied to sub area equity when sub area equity was killed off years ago. It was one of the few things keeping our regional system cohesive and regional. Seeing such a good idea misinterpreted makes me want to correct the misinformation. I am sorry if you see that desire as trolling.

Do you get the point of the complaint now?
8
@7

It's clear the one who doesn't read Seattle Transit Blog is you. d.p. is the number one commenter at STB and an exacting advocate of the best public transportation.

Some money appears to be fungable for Subarea equity purposes. However I don't think anything like East King money being used to build Ballard to UW would fly.

Further more the King County Metro subarea thing totally different from what Sound Transit does. ST splits money by where the texes come in. Metro split it 40/20/20.

If Metro collects tax revenue in the same proportions as ST the the Eastside was subsidizing South King County. Which goes to show every one gets screwed over sometimes.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.