Here is Sound Transit's formula:

Short-change Seattle projects, despite them being the most critical pieces, knowing that 1) we are so pro-transit that we will probably vote for it anyway, and 2) we will take steps to fund the in-city bits on our own, so they don't have to.

This plan worked well with the buses, where some lines were nonsensically reduced despite being efficient/profitable and packed to the gills. Seattle responded by funding its own levy to cover the budget gap.

Someone please remind me why we need Sound Transit at all ...

@1 sound Transit and Metro are not the same thing.

Mahtli69: Here is Sound Transit's formula: Short-change Seattle projects,...

Um, Sound Transit is only proposing to build an entire new goddam light-rail tunnel through downtown Seattle, and that's short-changing Seattle?! What wouldn't constitute short-changing Seattle to you?

Now, there are some legitimate complaints about ST3; there are some areas where Sound Transit deserves to be pressured to improve the plan. It would make such a difference if they could bring the Ballard timeline down to 18 years, and not by hand-waving but in concrete ways, even if that involves getting the City of Seattle to pass legislation this year.

I think Seattle Subway is on the right track with their critiques, just so they're not presenting those critiques as deal-breakers. The "grade separation all the way" one does come across that way. Yes, I'd love to see the new Ballard line grade-separated all the way. Even short of that, I see the possibility of disruptions with the ship canal crossing as a real design flaw. If they could just address that! And if they don't, well, I'm still going to be supporting ST3, so maybe I'm not as good a negotiator as the Seattle Subway folks. Good for them.

@2 whatever, same tactics. Metro operates the light rail for Sound Transit.

@3 the timeline is the problem, obviously. Ballard is being built denser NOW, without any supporting infrastructure. It needs light rail yesterday, not in 22 (or 18) years. Fucking priorities.

Based on the chatter I read on the Ballard nimbyhood discussion groups, they're opposed to anything new or that brings in more people, so 2038 is fine, perhaps even earlier than they'd like.

@5 What you say about the nimby's is true, except the condos are already built, the parking is already gone, and the people are already there. All that is fine with me if there is a way to get around the city.

Here's a another idea, let's finance this thing ourselves, why wait on expensive bonds?

http://www.seattlepublicbanking.org/