Vote "Approved" on ST3 on November 8!

All the Arguments Against Sound Transit's Light Rail Expansion Are Bullshit

Comments

1
I've been on the fence due to Claim 12 (ST3 Doesn't Do Enough For Seattle) and all that paragraph did was confirm that I'm right to be skeptical. This is a "transit" project that builds more suburban parking lots than urban transit stations.

25 years from now and $50 billion later it's still going to be a pain to go from Ballard to the U-District, and for what? So that people can drive to Totem Lake and hop a train to Bothell, instead of driving to Bothell?
2
This is going to increase my families taxes over $2600 on top of every other fucking levy we have. Why aren't the Corps being taxed for things like this? The Corps and developers are paying nothing! Amazon pays a total tax rate of 13%! Microsoft pays even less.
I live in West Seattle and I'm still voting no and I'm a raging tree hugger but I can't afford this! Don't give me the crap about how I'm reaping the benefits via my increase in my homes worth because until I sell that means NOTHING!

It's just like the Stranger to be so short sighted....how can we ever forget your position on the Commons?
3
RE: Claim 12 - You want me to vote for something thats, "Pretty damn good"? Are you joking? It will have 1 single station in all of Ballard (that will require a 20 minute walk for many Ballard residents) and limited coverage in West Seattle. What about Belltown, Central District, Fremont, Wallinford, Greenwood, Greenlake? This is not to mention that this is the only package that most of us will ever see in our lifetimes, and you want us to vote for something that's, "pretty damn good"? This is a suburban commuter line, at best. Something tells me you've never lived in a city with actual rail transit.
4
@1, @3, if ST3 passes, it probably will NOT be the last transit measure we see. ST3 includes studies to fund a Ballard-Fremont-UW line as well as West Seattle to Renton via Burien. Those could be a part of an ST4 package in 4-8 years.

Even without a dedicated Ballard-UW line, you'll be able to take a U-District to Westlake train in 8 minutes, then a Westlake to Ballard train in 14 minutes. With a 6 minute headway for the transfer, that's a max 28 minute Ballard-UW trip with ST3. AND, you're guaranteed to never get stuck in traffic.

If we get ST3, there's no need to stop there. If we don't get ST3, we definitely will NOT get the dream subway system we all want, whether that's ST3 or something different.
5
@2, if you're expecting to pay $2600 you a) live in a $1 million+ home b) own multiple Lexuses or c) make $300k+ per year. In other words, the only world in which you're paying that much is a world in which you are filthy rich. Otherwise, I suspect your math is wrong.
6
@Heidi

Great straw men. Way to knock 'em down.

Look, transit is complicated. I'm sorry you haven't the had time to figure it out. It is much easier to play heroes and villains (this is the tribal age, after all). Besides, you are probably too busy reporting (why question assumptions amiright?). But just ask yourself -- does that look like a transit map of any city you know that has a really good transit system?

Seriously -- go ahead, measure it out. A subway system from Tacoma to Everett. How does that compare to say, New York's (the best one in the U. S. A.)? Wow, a lot different -- biggest subway system in North America but it doesn't go out that far. How about Toronto or Vancouver? Holy shit -- ours is much, much more suburban. Boston, Chicago or DC? Yep, bigger. Not in total mileage -- but in the distance from the urban core to the outer reaches. It is like every city that has a very good transit system has a bunch of overlapping lines in the urban core and none of them go far from it.

Is there any system like this in North America? Is there any system that has built rail to the hinterlands and said "Great, now I don't need a car"? Well, yes and no. The system looks remarkably like what Dallas has built, yet Dallas ranks dead last in transit ridership for big cities. Dead, fucking, last.

But who cares, right? Fuck the suburbs. Fuck Tacoma, Fuck Everett and Fuck Issaquah. I live in Seattle and if those losers and idiots want to blow their money on something that clearly won't work for them, then let 'em. Who knows, maybe if I take in a show I'll ride Link down to the Tacoma Dome (the only stop in Tacoma -- miles away from where people actually work or live). Oh, wait, that takes an hour and 15 minutes -- yeah, maybe I'll take the other train (which takes an hour).

This is great for Seattle, right? This is exactly what we want. This is exactly what an expert panel would build, right? It covers the most densely populated parts of the city, while integrating in a completely awesome fashion with the buses to serve our less populated areas. Right, Right?

Not even close. This ignores the Central Area -- which is pretty easy to pick out in a census map (it is the dark cluster in the map). This ignores the obvious area where an investment in really expensive rail would pay off so that it serves ... West Seattle? West Seattle, really? West Seattle, which has a fucking freeway that connects it to the rest of the city. Oh well, at least the good people of West Seattle get something great, right? Right? Fuck no. There is no service to Alki. No service to South Seattle College. The only area that is has a rail line is the junction. Even the most densely populated part of West Seattle (High Point) doesn't get rail service, thus forcing all of those riders to get off the bus -- just when the bus ride was about to go fast -- and wait ten minutes for a train. What the fuck?

But why West Seattle? Seriously, why? It doesn't have the most popular bus, nor the most popular bus corridor, nor the most problematic corridor (did I tell you there is a freeway connecting it to Seattle). Nor does it have anything in the way of a meaningful set of stations "on the way" (there aren't any). A more cynical person would say West Seattle was chosen because the head of ST (Dow Constantine) lives there.

I don't believe that. I think Dow is a good man, but he doesn't know shit about transit, and he never bothered to delegate to people who did. Consider this: More than one person has come up with a subway plan to connect the Central Area and Queen Anne (and thus connect with the subway via Capitol Hill) as a means to replace the Metro 8 bus. Has Sound Transit studied that idea? No. Is it in their long term plans (to study)? No. Guess what is? Light rail from Woodinville to Mill Creek (seriously).

The system is fucked up. I know this is a long fucking comment, but it is a very complicated subject (sorry). It isn't like gay marriage or legal weed. Building a subway is extremely expensive, and you do it right, or you are bound to live with really shitty outcomes. You end up with the same old shit. Nothing for most of the city despite spending billions. No transit planning firm in the world would look at the census maps (or road maps, or employment maps, existing bus or subway maps) and come up with this shit.

We don't need to spend this much for a good transit system, we just need planners who aren't motivated by politics, but are actually willing to address our most pressing transit needs. It all starts with saying no.
7
The ST3 campaign also spews Bullshit and you are believing it. They tell you that $54 billion is not alot to pay for this - it's the largest transportation tax ever levied in the Country! There are places all over the world that build systems for less than Sound Transit it proposing here.

And the public meetings were meetings where a group of Sound Transit representatives get in a room and ask people what they want and people all said they wanted a train to their house. That's the type of thing that happens in these public meeting. You get to ask a question or turn in a comment but there is no back and forth discussion. Sound Transit takes the comments home - churns out a plan and then says they did it with the full knowledge and input of the public. We all know that is Bullshit.

The timelines are long and we know that Sound Transit has been terrible at predicting the construction times and costs. In fact they are building in 60% contingencies - this means they are adding $60% to each cost estimate because their "experts" can't do better than that at predicting the cost and timeline. Or maybe it's because they were in such a hurry to get this to ballot they decided to play it safe with 60% contingencies instead of the normal 30% contingency. The public will have to finance that added cost and pay the interest on it even if it's money that is just in there for a safety net.

Plus scope creep has already been built into this plan with $50 million dollars set aside for affordable housing planning and loans - what? What does this have to do with light rail? We just passed a Housing Levy!

And whats with the 30 or so full time employees at Sound Transit that just do publicity and marketing? Is that really a good use of our transportation dollars?

VOTE NO people - Don't believe the BULLSHIT

8
It could be payed for by simply closing all those anti-meritocratic state-level taxational loopholes - numbering over five-hundred - as soon as possible. -- http://www.taxsanity.org & http://www.ctj.org & http://www.inequality.org .
9
There are few things in this world that I look forward to more than voting Reuven Carlyle out of office.
10
Sorry, writer,
You are too new to the scene to have the credibility to be able to make the kind of statements you are making.
You are smart but don't have the experience/background.
11
ST3 sucks because it TAXES THE POOR THE HARDEST. Sorry for the caps, but you fucks at The Stranger always endorse higher sales taxes. This is yet another tax that hits the poor the hardest, and the rich the least. Didn’t you learn one damn thing from Bernie?

I’m fucking sick of so called progressives that want whatever new shinny toy that is dangled in front of them paid on the backs of the poorest of the poor. Washington State already has the fucking worst regressive taxes in the nation. Worse than Alabama. Worse than Mississippi. Worse than fucking West Virginia. – let the Stranger show you how to dig that grave even deeper by voting for this boondoggle.

Vote against all regressive tax proposals until something better is proposed.

You want to pay for this? Suggest a different way. If this is defeated Sound Transit – aka ‘the bureaucracy that will never die”- will come back with something better
12
I am a strong support of mass transit and voted affirmatively for ST3 (aka ST Prop 1). However, dear journalist and dear Stranger, I do find your headline extremely misleading and disingenuous (which are values I generally love about this publication) - but in the climate we're in with dipshits on the right all claiming widespread vote rigging ... not putting " " around Approved makes it sound like election results have been released. Please fix this - otherwise, to all the naysayers listed above and below this comment - just shut the fuck up and vote for it - light rail is a proven technology across the world and does everything its supposed to... unlike your car and your mansion which are nothing but climate changing money sucks (that you also deny I am sure).
13
"those of us in King County who really want light rail". Good lord, you sound like a petulant child. "But I want it, I want it, I reall really want it and you're a poop-head if you don't give it to me!".
14
I voted for this, but I honestly dont see how it would personally benefit me. I dont own a car and absolutely depend on buses and even if light rail had a stop at the Kent Transit Station (where the Sounder Commuter stops) I wouldn't take it as the ST commuter buses would be faster and would operate earlier than the light rail. To go from Kent to Redmond (Bear Creek P&R), it would have to go through Seattle, just to get to Bellevue, then onto Redmond and in order to maximize the ridership, it would have to go through lots of residential areas and as such, slow the fuck down when going through them. The 567 bus goes from Kent to Overlake TC, then 269 to work (or 545 to Bear Creek, then mile walk to work) and its maybe 2 stops between Kent and Bellevue, its highway most of the way.

The light rail, when completed would take much longer to get to Redmond and ST would probably eliminate the 567/566 routes, forcing me into a much longer commute and I would have to ask work to re-schedule, letting me come in later as the light rail, in no way, would be up and running at 430-5am.
15
the anti-ST3 ding dong on KUOW this morning was hilarious. self-driving van pools instead?

former 1970s metro chief, please.
16
@2 Thank you and why in the world does this city keep piling on the middle class homeowners while the corporations who benefit from all our largesse get away with paying so little. Why do the so-called progressive liberals keep letting our region's corporate giants get away with investing so little in the infrastructure? Cowardice and lack of vision is what I say.

@5, Not rich by Seattle standards, drive 10 year old cars, bought a house we could afford at the time and watching affordability at the time slip away through double-digit tax increases year after year. It adds up. Owning a home costs money you know -- roofs, plumbing, furnace replacements, and it goes on and on. All these are huge five-figure costs on top of health care, car repairs and vet bills while wages stay stagnant. Someday I hope you are in the fortunate position to gain compassion for this argument yourself and that by then, the corporations around here are paying their fair share.
17
Heidi,

I agree. Lots of bullshit. Not the least being people not being able to see past next week.

One thing you did not mention (unless I missed it) is that transportation now makes up the single largest contribution to greenhouse gases. The automobile -- the most destructive force ever invented outside of war -- is a huge "driver" (pun intended) of climate change. You know, that thing that's occurring slowly but surely alongside us humans.

Even if car companies start churning out EV's, there will be carbon-burning going on well into this century. Well, unless as a species we don't survive.

Yeah, I'm thinking that in the age of climate change, $54 billion is going to look like chump change. And the throw-backs who vote against ST3, who may stand a chance to survive because of pro-voters like us, won't even thank us for it...
18
Here's why the opponents of ST3 have to resort to such bullshit arguments, and Charles Mudede touched on this in his fine Slog post yesterday/Tuesday.

The opponents of ST3 are opposed to ST3 because, fundamentally, they're opposed to mass transit and to paying taxes for mass transit. The sheer thought of paying taxes to benefit the common good and to improve people's commutes and, God forbid, to make somebody else's commute better than their own--it's something that disgusts them to the core of their being. That's just the way these folks are wired. They'd rather share their Hobbesian misery than, well, share.

But they can't come out and share their true motivations. They already have their fellow travelers. They don't have to win them over. But they do have to win over people for whom their true motivations are childish and foolish.

So instead they have to play this game where they pretend to support mass transit, but just not this particular mass transit plan. They support paying taxes for mass transit, but just not this particular "regressive" tax package. And if the legislature had given Sound Transit the complete opposite revenue options, then they'd be complaining how those taxes are the most "regressive" ever.

You're connecting Ballard and downtown? Well, you really ought to be connecting Ballard and the U-District. And if Sound Transit had decided to connect Ballard and the U-District, they'd be complaining that it wasn't connecting Ballard and downtown.

You're completing the spine to Everett and Tacoma? Well, you really ought to be focusing on the dense areas of Seattle, i.e. going it alone. But if Seattle did try to go it alone (like Seattle did with the monorail), they'd be complaining that we need a regional approach.

And here's the most precious one of all. "Just reject this plan, and next year, we'll be able to get a better plan." This is their biggest lie. And if we do reject this plan and Sound Transit gets the authorization from the state legislature to come up with another plan, well, we all know it won't be a better plan. It will be that much worse. And even then, the opponents will come back and say, "Just reject this plan, and next year, we'll be able to get a better plan."

It's like Lucy always pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.
19
fancymustard @3: It will have 1 single station in all of Ballard (that will require a 20 minute walk for many Ballard residents) and limited coverage in West Seattle. What about Belltown, Central District, Fremont, Wallinford, Greenwood, Greenlake?

What's funny is, if Sound Transit had decided to place a station in Belltown or Fremont or Wallingford, you'd then be complaining about the "limited coverage" in those neighborhoods and how it would be a 20-minute walk for "many" Belltown and Fremont and Wallingford residents to get to the station.

Here's the other funny thing. I'm someone who would directly benefit from light rail reaching most of the overlooked neighborhoods you mention. And as someone who wants to see light rail reach those neighborhoods, I see ST3 as the best possible foundation to do so. Once we have two north-south downtown transit tunnels, we can add another north-south route, and it only makes sense that the northbound portion of such a route would go straight up through Belltown, Fremont, Wallingford, Greenlake, and Greenwood. Asking residents of those neighborhoods to reject ST3 in the interest of bring light rail to them is kinda like telling a high school student who wants to be a doctor that a bachelor's degree is a waste of their time.

But hey, as you say, "Something tells me you've never lived in a city with actual rail transit." I'd love to find out about this mystical, magical city city with "real" rail transit you speak of.

Anyway, "fancymustard," so sorry you didn't bother to stick around long enough to still have a Stranger profile, rather than just a "404 Not Found" when I click your link.
20
I held my nose and voted yes. I hate that it depends on a huge increase on an already worst-in-the-country regressive tax structure and I hate that it gives so much to the 'burbs while ignoring Seattle. That said, if it fails, I hope organizers come back with a Seattle only version that hugely expands what is currently in the proposal.
21
I Got Nuthin' @20: "I hate that it gives so much to the 'burbs while ignoring Seattle."

I appreciate your voting yes, but how is ST3 ignoring Seattle when it would build an entire new transit tunnel in downtown Seattle and bring light rail to the same corridor that the "Seattle only" monorail project was supposed to serve? Not to mention the other Seattle projects.

And how is this giving away anything to the suburbs? You do understand how subarea equity works? Seattle pays for Seattle projects. Snohomish County pays for Snohomish County projects. Etc. In fact, my recollection (I could be wrong) is that the suburbs are kicking in a bit for the second downtown tunnel.
22
An endorsement from the Stranger? That's all I need to know for a No (sarcastic but true enough). Thanks, Heidi!
23
I voted no solely because of 12. I've voted yes on every other mass transit system (including the monorail - what was it? 3 times? - but this one seems to mainly connect suburbs to other suburbs. I just don't think we'll get another chance at light rail after we pay for this one so it's important that it's useful.
24
Connecting the suburbs like Tacoma and Everett? What a waste. Remember how nobody rode the light rail when it only went from downtown South? This is like that on steroids. Cut this in half and build it for Seattle and I'll vote for it.
25
@21 I'm sorry that you don't understand ST3 since you're pretending to understand subarea equity. ST3 actually takes more money from the burbs to improve seattle and the north end.

Seems to be that ST3 should probably just do the big interconnects between cities, and leave the local plans up to the cities. fuck spending money on west seattle and ballard. If seattle wants rail so bad, maybe it should consider paying for it.
26
foobarbaz @25, my recollection is that there is money coming from some suburbs to pay for the new transit tunnel, but that's being driven by the fact that the new tunnel is going to be helping those suburbs. What am I missing? And please provide a link.

But here's what's odd about your comment interposed with the other complaints. Y'all are complaining that ST3 is too Seattle-centric and at the same time that it's giving Seattle the shaft. Which one is it, people?

Maybe the fact that the package is getting it from both ends is an indication that the Sound Transit board struck just about the right balance politically. Or maybe we just have to hope for the day to come when MLK's dream is realized and Seattleites and suburbanites can recognize their common humanity.
27
I hate driving; always have, always will. As proof, I offer this: I drive anywhere from 2,000 - 3,000 miles a YEAR - far below average. The miles I log each year on public transportation (train/bus) = 12,000+! I will walk 4 mile round trips to run errands - only getting behind the wheel on the weekends if I have to.

I am voting NO.

The majority of our public transportation efforts are to ferry people to and from work. Building a more extensive network only serves to support the flawed model of ONE major job center west of the cascades: Seattle. We need to stop this. We need more job development in the smaller urban centers so we can stop having to move so many people to one job center IN THE FIRST PLACE.

People that live in Tacoma, Everett, Edmonds, Federal Way etc...should be able to work in the cities they live in. Tacoma is a fracking black hole devoid of jobs outside retail. People that want to live in cities NOT Seattle end up having no choice for work, as Seattle sucks the air out of the room in terms of jobs.

I want to see more decentralized job development. I'd rather see a change the paradigm we have now than to build more ways to ensure it never changes. I know, I know...the average Stranger reader simply CANNOT get their mind around not wanting to live in Seattle;reality itself ends at the Seattle city line for most of the Stranger's demographic, with an abyss of nothing beyond it.
28
I love how property tax hike advocates say it's only ~$500 household a year and invariably neglect to consider the cumulative property tax burden from all the other levies that are replenished and upped every year.
29
The "making the perfect the enemy of the good" reasoning in this thread is ludicrous. "ST3 isn't the perfect utopian solution to all our transportation problems, so I'm voting 'no." Lot of shortsighted motherfuckers on this thread, most of whom probably support building a fucking stadium. Guess what kids, you're not getting a better package. This is it. But then again, we all know you're being disingenuous concern trolls.
30
#28: Well, unless people like you start supporting income tax, this is what we're stuck with: the propertied class paying for infrastructure.
31
@30: There is no such thing as "people like you" because people whom are not "people like you" are burdened as well. And you can't assume my position on a state income tax as it is not on the ballot.
32
@30- do you honestly believe income tax would replace increases in property tax? Do you think that constantly tapped revenue stream would suddenly be forgotten? If you do you really are incredibly stupid.
33
"And 800,000 new people are expected in the region by 2040."

Then they or the employers who are attracting them can pay for ST3 by imposing an enormous head tax on companies located in dense urban development. Collect $10K/year from Amazon, Vulcan, et al on every employee in South Lake Union. Tax the shit out of every business located in the cores of Seattle, Bellevue, and Redmond, because their dense corporate campuses create our traffic problems.

Building this much transit without significant federal investment is foolish. Stupid. Ridiculous. Patty Murray is the 4th ranking Democratic Senator. As soon as the Feds pony up for 25-50% of the cost, then it might make sense for us to tax ourselves. Until then, nope.

It isn't the job of the people who live here to subsidize building transit for people who will only move here if they can get to work, especially not at $1000 per household per year. A policy of unfettered urban growth imposes enormous costs upon people who've lived here for decades, to benefit the newcomers with their new money.

Vote no.
34
This article is a sorry excuse for journalism.

The Stranger loses all right to whine about gentrification and housing costs after the way they've shilled for ST3.

Hope your proud of yourself Ms. Groover you epitomize everything wrong with American Journalism!
35
Serious question . . . why are our local gays so enamored with regressive tax schemes? There are far better ways to finance transit, which don't impact households with the least means. The Stranger won't acknowledge those, or point out how abusive the taxing for transit here is (let alone how much worse it would be if this mess is approved).
36
I don't understand why this isn't on my ballot, yet I'll be paying for it if it passes? I realize it isn't coming to the sticks of Maple Valley but, if I have to pay I want a say! Or are we magically exempt if the rail won't come near us?
37
@21 You answered my critic yourself in @19:

Once we have two north-south downtown transit tunnels, we can add another north-south route, and it only makes sense that the northbound portion of such a route would go straight up through Belltown, Fremont, Wallingford, Greenlake, and Greenwood. Asking residents of those neighborhoods to reject ST3 in the interest of bring light rail to them is kinda like telling a high school student who wants to be a doctor that a bachelor's degree is a waste of their time.


How long will it take to get those routes? How many initiatives ST4? ST5? ST6? I'm sorry, but fuck that shit. Seattle needs those lines and those stops today.

Oh, and take your condescension and shove it up your ass.
38
@37 s/b criticism

Man I wish Slog would allow for the editing of comments.
39
That yellow LeMonde is fresh
40
Several of you commented about how corporations should be paying more for transit. I share that frustration. Sound Transit has the ability to levy a $2 per employee business tax but doesn’t. According to the agency, “the amount raised would be so minimal the Board did not give it any significant consideration” for ST3. (There is also, surely, some political calculus there.)

In order to make corporations pay more, the state legislature would have to give Sound Transit the authority to charge more than that $2 per employee tax. Given the fight we saw in Olympia just to get the approval for the taxes that ARE in ST3, I think waiting for the legislature to give them the ability to tax businesses more is wishful thinking that delays transit expansion for longer than we can afford to wait.

ST3 supporters also point out that businesses will pay a share of the taxes that are in ST3. According to Sound Transit, businesses pay 42 percent of sales taxes and 35 percent of property taxes. That may not compare to a meaningful progressive tax on wealthy corporations, but it’s not nothing.

A few people have also mentioned the idea of Seattle going it alone or trying to force Sound Transit to come back with a smaller package focused on Seattle. Sound Transit is regional agency, its board members represent the region, and its tax dollars come from across the region. Sound Transit is not going to deliver a Seattle-only package.

In order for Seattle to really go it alone, the city would have to come up with a new taxing source (something like the Monorail plan) and charge those taxes only on Seattleites. This would require another fight in Olympia to get us this authority and it would likely result in much less rail for Seattle. For example: A huge portion of the cost for the Ballard and West Seattle lines in ST3 is the new downtown tunnel. In ST3, we’re getting help paying for that. (http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/polit…) If Seattle goes it alone, we have to pay for everything alone. Transit advocates—including Seattle Subway, which is particularly focused on getting Seattle the most rail as fast as possible—believe going it alone would get us less than what is delivered in ST3 and take longer.

As to the question about the value of suburban rail, again, Sound Transit is the agency we have and it is regional. It is going to build a regional rail system driven by yes, politics, but also projections about where the region is going to grow in coming decades. I would also point to this piece (http://seattletransitblog.com/2016/06/08…), which lays out important comparisons between what Sound Transit is building and other systems, including Dallas.

Beyond ST3, a separate Seattle-only tax to supplement ST3 and build more rail lines in the city is not out of the question. But right now: Do you believe, if ST3 loses, that the City of Seattle can successfully get significant taxing authority from the broken state legislature, get those taxes passed by voters, and build a robust Seattle-only rail system? Further, do you believe this city will take the steps necessary to stop people from being priced out of Seattle and forced to outlying areas? Or should we build high quality mass transit to those areas?

@10, @13, @34 All great feedback. Thanks for reading!

@36 If it’s not on your ballot, you won’t be paying for it. Here are the boundaries of Sound Transit's taxing district: http://www.soundtransit.org/sites/defaul…
41
-- "In order to make corporations pay more, the state legislature would have to give Sound Transit the authority to charge more than that $2 per employee tax." --

That's not true -- Sound Transit could use its LID-assessment authority, and sell bonds secured by those revenues. It also could sell fare-revenue backed debt -- again, given that employers pay for Orca cards that's another way of financing buses and trains without making our worst-in-the-country state/local tax structure even worse for households of modest means.

Disturbingly, you parrot the propagandists' claim that the legislature is to blame for the excessive regressive general tax options Sound Transit (and Metro) use. The fact of the matter is Sound Transit paid its lobbyists millions of dollars to go to Olympia to push the party heads to give it EXCACTLY what that unaccountable board wanted: higher sales tax, car tax, and property tax imposition powers. Sound Transit has EXACTLY what it wants -- limitless excessive regressive taxation authority to harm the households with the least the most.

Oh . . . your claim that corporations pay 42% of the aggregate sales tax hauled in? That's a tiny percentage of the revenues of those corporations, whereas the percentages of income a low-income household with kids pays for transit around here is so significant it takes food off the table. Big difference -- one you should appreciate much, much better than you do.
42
@41 "Sound Transit paid its lobbyists millions of dollars to go to Olympia to push the party heads to give it EXCACTLY what that unaccountable board wanted" Source?
43
Heidi: You can ask Rep. Jake Fey which of the Sound Transit lobbyists actually contacted him and gave him the proposed text that he rubberstamped as HB 1180 in this year's legislative session. Their identity and what they were paid is not something the public can determine.

Here's the House Report on his substitute bill (SHB 1180), and you can see how the heads of Sound Transit (Murray, O'Brien, and other board memberrs) testified for it, as well as TCC and other interest groups. Look at how what the pushers of ST3 wanted was nothing but regressive tax hikes. http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2…
They got what they wanted -- those same regressive tax authority provisions -- in the broader transpo bill adopted later that year and signed by Inslee.
44
Further to your question about "who were the lobbyists and what were they paid by Sound Transit" -- HB 1180 was introduced early in the legislative session, and it had 26 co-sponsors. It's companion (e.g., mirror image) bill in the senate had 20 co-sponsors. All 46 of those state legislators had been contacted by the platoon of lobbyists Sound Transit hired to push their bills for additional regressive tax authority. You could find out from them the names of the lobbyists and the firms hired to push those bills, then you could take at look at the contracts identified on the recent "contracts reports" Sound Transit publishes quarterly to see how much those lobbying firms were paid.
45
What's bullshit is a third go-round of tax hikes. What will be the fourth or fifth? As a person that had supported ST3, then found myself on the fence, I'm not quite so sure that a BART like regional transit system is going to meet Seattle City residents needs to the extent of the costs. So think long and hard about your needs and costs before voting 'yes'.
46
"There is no alternative," King County executive Dow Constatine said according to the article.

That may be true. However, there should be alternatives to FUNDING it.
47
Got off the fence and voted no. I'm with the many of you who voted for all those public transportation bills in the past. This one, poor ROI and flimsy.

Food for thoughts Pat_See. Looks like there's more beef if journalists are hungry.
48
rshoff @45: I'm not quite so sure that a BART like regional transit system is going to meet Seattle City residents needs to the extent of the costs.

The big things that Seattle residents are paying for are the new downtown transit tunnel for light rail to Ballard, the light rail to Ballard, and light rail to West Seattle. That's hard to characterize as a "BART like regional transit system." Throw in the BRT projects in Seattle, and it sure looks to me like Seattle is getting what Seattle wants.

Or how would you advise that Seattle's subarea taxes be better spent?

Oh, and by the way, you're welcome to go down whatever rabbit holes you wish in responding to me. I've got all weekend.
49
mallow @47 is bringing back a classic trope of these mass transit ballot measures. On every one of these measures, going back to the dawn of this century, a whole bunch of commenters on sites like this crawl out of the woodwork to proclaim, "I've voted for every transportation measure that's ever been on my ballot, and this is the first one I'm voting no on because it's just so awful."

If you take what these people say at face value, every transportation ballot measure is the uniquely horrible ballot measure that every previous one wasn't.

Now, Mallow here says in particular, "This one, poor ROI and flimsy." So let me get this straight. If building a second light rail tunnel and connecting the regional transit spine is flimsy, I have trouble imagining what rises above the level of flimsy. Oh, and for it to be poor ROI at the same time--that's a bit like that Groucho Mark joke (or was it a Woody Allen joke?), "The food at this restaurant is terrible, and the portions are too small."

Anyway, they have to pull out their little rhetorical conceit that they've been for every transit measure except THIS ONE because they know people in this region want reliable transit, and they know their only hope is to take pro-transit voters' eyes off the ball.
50
I don't know if it's a more a generational or regional tendency to declare any and all critiques obliterated!!! by tautological recitations as hilariously flimsy as those found in Heidi's post, but I've seen even more this election cycle than ever. Maybe it's both.

Still not a good look on a "journalist".
51
d.p. @50, you do have a point considering that Heidi is trying to make a sincere argument whereas you've obviously been deliberately trying to bullshit us all along. How else to explain your patently ludicous claim that we should reject this plan so that we can get something better (whatever "better" is) "next year"? How else to explain the ridiculous notion that the destinations in ST3 are undeserving compared to Greenwood and Lake City Way of all places?

But you know what, even though Heidi Groover may not be the equal of Dan Savage himself when it comes to making a pro-transit case, I'll still take her over someone who writes 500-word+ anti-transit screeds in the middle of the night from the East Coast and who was kicked off the comfy confines of Seattle Transit Blog for abusive behavior.

Hey, feel free to tell us how my nasty, ad hominem personal attacks don't make this bad plan any good. Just keep in mind, it's going to be hard for the rest of us who aren't as brilliant as you are to separate any non-bullshit arguments as to why this is a bad plan from your more obvious bullshit.

P.S. Do you get paid a dollar every time you use some form of the word "tautology" or is that just a tic of yours?
52
ST3 lacks the capacity to scratch the surface of our transit problems. Until a realistic plan is proposed that can manage the need then the only sensible vote is NO.

(think about it 8,000 to 16,000 per hour?! Are you kidding? Then in the same breath you turn around and talk about an influx of 800,000 people before this is even built. How is low capacity, low speed, light rail a solution?)
53
@48 - maybe Seattle gets what it wants, but it gets it at the expense of those that don't get what they need. The rest of the region will continue to need to own newer cars to address their unmet transit needs and thus shoulder a disproportionately high portion of the tax burden so that carless Seattlites can get around. Anyone with an ounce of sense who lives outside of Seattle will vote NO.
54
Cressona,

It isn't my problem that you can't read a fucking density map and have no idea how public transit works.

Craft a better plan after ST3 fails, or reach 2040 and you still can't go anywhere useful without a car after completing the single most expensive boondoggle ever undertaken by a city of middling size and lackluster urban form. Your choice.
55
A refresher for people who aren't as stupid at Cressona: https://buildthecity.files.wordpress.com…

Please, I dare you: explain to me how this map argues for spending billions in Interbay, or building giant new Duwamish bridges to the fucking wart that passes for "urbanized West Seattle". Explain to me why the C.D. and the contiguous cross-North Seattle corridor and, yes, Greenwood should receive the permanent shaft so that shockingly small percentage of (already comparatively fast) radial commute trips can get slightly faster a couple of hours a day.

Explain to me why the precise contents of ST3 -- no cynically flogging traffic bottlenecks that ST2 is already funded to fix, no making shit up about the mythical future chia-Manhattans of Issaquah and Federal Way -- justify the cost of New York's Second Avenue Subway 3x over, borne by an entire generation, to mostly run low-demand trains to non-places. "We're stupid snowflakes in a bubble economy" does not an inevitable success story make.

56
None of that is to suggest that all of Seattle and all of Puget Sound shouldn't see more and better transportation, of course.

But light rail cannot reach everywhere, which is why cities with sane planning regimes employ all of the potential tools in the toolbox, and employing expensive new rail sparingly where it can make the most difference to the network. Vancouver, BC is a fantastic example of this, and transit usage (city, inner suburb, and radial commute alike) obliterate Seattle's.

Vancouver did not need to build 120 miles of trains to nowhere to achieve this. In fact, it would have achieved far less than it has by spending billions in the wrong places.

Why is Seattle pathologically insistent in its refusal to learn from example?
57
The opponents of ST3 are opposed to ST3 because, fundamentally, they're opposed to mass transit and to paying taxes for mass transit.

That is fundamentally your argument, and it is not too far away from Heidi's. It is, of course, false. I voted for ST1 and ST2. I voted for every Metro proposal and every Seattle proposal that would enhance Metro (e. g. Move Seattle). I'm pretty sure d. p. did as well. Because here is the really weird thing, cressona:

People who know a lot about transit tend to support it.

You will find very few independent transit experts that are "fundamentally opposed to transit". They obsess over this because they like it. They tend to be left wingers, who believe that spending money on quality transit projects is a great idea. They ride transit all the time, and love it when it works, and dream about ways of improving it when it doesn't.

Now, obviously, some of those experts are willing to accept failure. They figure that some transit -- however poorly designed -- is better than nothing. Fair enough. But there are also transit loving transit experts who don't think we should accept crap. Because crap just isn't good for anyone. And ST3 -- sorry to say -- is mostly crap.

Of course it has some good stuff. If you just randomly pick rail lines in the city, then you will end up with some good stuff. But if you choose arbitrary, largely symbolic, but meaningless goals (like completing "the spine" or building light rail to one tiny part of West Seattle) then you are screwed. Light rail is really, really expensive. If it is hard as hell to fix. We could really use a stop on First Hill, or just on Madison anywhere (especially given the first BRT in town will soon be running on that street). But guess what -- it won't happen, because we screwed up. Forty years ago the Forward Thrust people had it right -- the ST3 "planners" don't.

I put planners in quotes because this wasn't designed by professional planners. This was designed -- oddly enough -- by politicians. No independent planning organization in the world would run a line to West Seattle before the Central Area. That is absurd. But I guess that is what happens when the head of ST3 lives in the neighborhood.
58
Regressive economically. Steals from the poor and gives to the rich. Also, economically steals from Pierce and Snohomish and gives to King. Seattle corporate taxes and impact fees on new construction can pay for it.
59
@51

you do have a point considering that Heidi is trying to make a sincere argument whereas you've obviously been deliberately trying to bullshit us all along. How else to explain your patently ludicous claim that we should reject this plan so that we can get something better (whatever "better" is) "next year"?

You do realize that this isn't the first Sound Transit proposal right? There have been five all together. The first would have built the spine, and nothing more. No rail to Ballard or West Seattle. Just a beautiful, beautiful spine connecting Everett to Tacoma. Of course it would have had the same financial problems as the first proposal, and would have had the same sort of cutbacks. So instead of throwing First Hill under the bus (no pun intended) it would have gone from the UW to downtown via the freeway. So, no Capitol Hill station (what do you think of the system now, Charles?) but at least it would be a subway. Of course you would have high ridership between the UW and downtown (that was a given) but of course you would have pathetic ridership to Tacoma and Everett (which we will have in a twenty years, if your dream is realized).

But that didn't happen. Despite the fact that I voted for it -- seriously, I did -- I am quite thankful that it lost. Another loss was "Roads and Transit'. I voted for that one, too, figuring we should accept a little extra in the way of road projects (no matter how poorly designed) so that we can get some rail. Are you really saying you would have preferred that over ST2? Really?

Look, this shit is complicated. People write complete paragraphs with fancy words because the difference between 100 miles of shitty light rail in Dallas and 43 miles of kick ass light rail in Vancouver is night and day. Vancouver transit is better, by every imaginable measure. It takes a while to explain this. This is a summary. Really. I could write an Atlantic Monthly length article on the subject, given its complexity. But it all boils down to this: No city, anywhere, has built anything like this without everyone still driving their car. This isn't the D. C. Metro. It isn't TransLink. This is just a ridiculously expensive form of DART.
60
Heidi: NEWS FLASH! Saying something is "bullshit" doesn't make your argument strong. This is a bunch of opinion-laced nonsense.

Sound Transit as an agency has done a terrible job planning for the inevitable growth of this region. The number one principle they must adhere to 100% of the time is always always always building rail above or below ground (or if it is on the ground then it must be on unused land).

ST should NEVER EVER take roadways away from cars and buses. That is EXACTLY what they're doing on the I-90 express lanes right now. The result is going to be an unmitigated daily traffic DISASTER. News flash to ST: nobody from Bellevue. And people from Issaquah and Snoqualmie are not going to drive to Bellevue to take this stupid train and as a result I-90 is going to be even more clogged than it was.

These people need to go back to the drawing board and come up with a plan that will work for the next 100 years. Until then, they do not have my support, irrespective of the fact that you may say my arguments against the plan are "bullshit."
61
@Ross's comment is so spot on; I couldn't agree more. Loved this part of it especially:

I don't believe that. I think Dow is a good man, but he doesn't know shit about transit, and he never bothered to delegate to people who did. Consider this: More than one person has come up with a subway plan to connect the Central Area and Queen Anne (and thus connect with the subway via Capitol Hill) as a means to replace the Metro 8 bus. Has Sound Transit studied that idea? No. Is it in their long term plans (to study)? No. Guess what is? Light rail from Woodinville to Mill Creek (seriously).

The system is fucked up. I know this is a long fucking comment, but it is a very complicated subject (sorry). It isn't like gay marriage or legal weed. Building a subway is extremely expensive, and you do it right, or you are bound to live with really shitty outcomes. You end up with the same old shit. Nothing for most of the city despite spending billions. No transit planning firm in the world would look at the census maps (or road maps, or employment maps, existing bus or subway maps) and come up with this shit.

We don't need to spend this much for a good transit system, we just need planners who aren't motivated by politics, but are actually willing to address our most pressing transit needs. It all starts with saying no.
62
Vote yes and wipe the smug grin off these small minded and short sighted "West Seattle doesn't deserve light rail cuz they've got a [constantly backed up] freeway!" multiple-comment unhinged elitist assholes.
63
geographically elitist, please!
64
Light rail is not uber eats
65
You're as dumb as you look, "Pridge".
66
ST3’s map uselessly draws new bus routes over ALREADY EXISTING (!) arterial bus routes north of 520 along 405, and across the top of the lake, in order to justify taxing Northshore residents for the funding of light rail spurs to Microsoft, Ballard, West Seattle, and Issaquah -- spurs which could be of no real benefit to Northshore residents.

Where’s the much-needed light rail along 405 north of 520, and across the top of the lake?

Why is ST3 working on spurs before the arterials are finished?

(I'd be thrilled with the opportunity of a 20 minute walk to a light rail station, NO problem! So let's just skip those Ballard weenies -- put a light rail station at Brickyard instead.)
67
So I knew our friend d.p. would go ballistic at me, but what's most telling about his responses @54, @55, and @56 is that he doesn't even attempt to defend his most blatant piece of bullshit--that if we only reject this uniquely terrible plan, we can vote on a "better" plan literally next year.

Crickets.

Just pretends like he never said it and hopes the rest of us have a short enough attention span to forget.

So d.p., we already know you're willing to say anything, you're willing to pull anything out of your ass, you're willing to tell lies that you know only fools would believe--anything to try to sell people on rejecting ST3. And now you expect us to believe you that ST3 is going to be the worst transit planning boondoggle in American history and that Peter Rogoff and co., unlike you, have no idea about building out a transit system?

You really do take us for fools.
68
Man, last weekend before election day and the sock puppets are coming out in force.

conib, 🚲🚇🚠$, dpmf, welcome y'all to Slog. What I find remarkable is that you're so consistent in your premise that, no, you're not really transit foes, you really do support transit. It's just that you know better than the planners and politicians at Sound Transit. If they only were wiser and purer and followed your prescriptions, we'd have a transit system that was really worth supporting.

So dear voters of the Sound Transit district, listen to the expert transit planners conib, 🚲🚇🚠$, and dpmf, reject this plan, and four years from now or eight years from now we can vote on another plan, the right plan. And déjà vu, lo and behold, the next generation of conib, 🚲🚇🚠$, and dpmf will suddenly materialize to tell us, "No, no, we know better. Reject this plan, and we can do better."

It's like "Groundhog Day" except the day lasts four years or eight years.
69
@67 -- what's most telling about his responses is that he doesn't even attempt to defend his most blatant piece of bullshit--that if we only reject this uniquely terrible plan, we can vote on a "better" plan literally next year.

He has defended that numerous times. I just defended it (@59). Let me give you a quick history lesson.

The first transit proposal failed. That would have been a full and shitty spine that probably would have skipped Capitol Hill. Guess what, they came back with a better plan (more buses for the suburbs and a smaller, better rail package). A "Roads and Transit" plan also failed, but they came back again with a better plan. History has shown that when Sound Transit proposals fail, they come back with a better proposal. Two for two.

But you somehow think that this is either a great and wonderful plan -- with no argument as to why -- or think that somehow history won't repeat itself. Somehow this is it. If this fails, we never get any transit improvement again. That is nonsense.

My God, all these pro-ST3 arguments all boil down to the same silly argument -- we like light rail. I get it. I do too. d. p. does as well. But you have never made the case -- nor has Heidi -- for why this is a good light rail plan. Because such a case is impossible. There is no science to support it. Neither common sense nor the history of similar systems built in other areas support it. There is nothing to support it, other than a hunch.

Just read the section entitled "The planning process is broken" in this blog post for a short summary or the problem.
70
What Ross said.

Insisting that a rail plan is always good because a rail plan is always good, or that no better plan is possible because no better plan is possible, is the textbook definition of "tautological reasoning". Maybe you should look up that word before mocking its use. Illiteracy is rarely a good look.

As ever, Cressona, your character assassinations are counterfactual and your protestations flailing. Not bothering to read or process a historically-accurate rebuttal to your dogmatic insistences does not make your insistences any more true.
71
"Sock puppet" and "Welcome y'all to ..."?

Skip the b.s., cressona, and address the issues I'm raising -- if you can:

That entire orange dotted line of allegedly "new" ST3 "Bus Rapid Transit" already exists.

ST3 doesn't benefit Northshore residents at all, and actually attempts to deceive the entire Eastside by drawing those "new" bus lines over our existing arterial bus routes.

The light rail arterials need to be completed first -- along that orange dotted line -- before the spurs out to Microsoft, Ballard, Issaquah, West Seattle, etc.
72
d.p.: Insisting that a rail plan is always good because a rail plan is always good,...

Gee, sounds like somebody's engaging in a little Donald Trump-style projection. Because based on the various self-contradictory, inherently anti-transit, throw-some-spaghetti-on-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks arguments you've made over the course of thousands of words, it appears that the only acceptable rail plan for you is the one that does not exist.

The thing is, coming into the ST3 planning, I had in my own mind the ideal package I was looking for but I also had to contemplate the minimal plan I could support. What Sound Transit arrived at turned out to be the ideal package. You think Seattle Subway is holding their nose over this? You see any division in the environmental or transit communities over this? Aside from the usual anti-tax, anti-transit suspects, the only opponents are the usual anti-vaxer-like cranks like you and Ross.

You may hate this plan, but we mainstream, non-crank pro-transit folks love it, not just because it's transit and we're pro-transit and we'll settle for anything that has a transit label on it but because Sound Transit is now unequivocally, unabashedly giving us the system we've been looking for.

Now, you may think we're idiots for coming to that conclusion, but you've done a pretty good job of establishing yourself as someone who thinks everybody beside yourself is an idiot. Y'know, kinda like that Trump guy.

And anyway, you're clearly too good for this "city of middling size and lackluster urban form." Not to mention, we dress badly and the weather here sucks.
73
Ross @69, again, you and d.p. are very carefully sidestepping the most obvious piece of b.s. that d.p. dropped, that if we only reject this plan we'd be able to vote on a better plan "next year."

Hold on. Let me check my calendar. Looks like next year is 2017. How's that supposed to work out?

d.p. knew all too well that he had to BS that one, that telling the truth--that our next bite at the apple would only be in 2020 or 2024--would be just too unpalatable. And y'know, once a bullshit artist, always a bullshit artist. And all to try to hornswoggle that small sliver of the electorate that is pro-transit, that wants to vote for light rail expansion, but which can be tricked into making an anti-transit vote.

If Dow Constantine were 1/100th as shifty and disingenuous as you guys have been, we'd never hear the end of it. But such is the luxury of the armchair quarterback.
75
I've never claimed clairvoyance, Cressona. That's your domain, with your magical-thinking-based New York-level rail ridership in Fife and your skyscrapers housing millions of "climate refugees" and your inevitable ST4 through ST8 and all your other rancid bullshit.

I've only pointed out A) that bad plans have been rejected before, and led to better ones; and B) that ST3's generation-long calendar is a function of funding alone, meaning that a more efficient set of projects (i.e. any package that isn't designed to blow $54 billion for the fuck of it) voted on later could (by ST's own admission) have shovels in the ground sooner.

I've never promised "a 2017 vote". Because that doesn't matter. A 2018 or 2020 vote on projects actually designed to be worth a damn would still yield a faster delivery date. Oh, and you'd end up with mass transportation actually worth a damn.

I'm sorry that you're sensitive to being called out as someone who mistakes foamer zeal for expertise, but it really shouldn't be the region's $54 billion problem that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, have no interest in learning, and are a raging asshole to boot.
77
Sound Transit needs to finish the Eastside arterial light rail along 405 first, prior to beginning work on the spurs proposed in this deeply flawed and deceptive Proposition 1.
78
d.p. @75: I've never claimed clairvoyance, Cressona.

More d.p. @75: I've never promised "a 2017 vote".

Wow, d.p., you're really getting into the realm of parsing words. This is a little bit like the polling aggregators saying Hillary Clinton has an 85% chance of winning the presidency and then trying to backtrack on that by saying, "Hey, we're not psychics; we didn't promise a Clinton victory."

What you claimed for the gullible out there was that a 2017 vote was the realistic alternative if they just cast a Ralph Nader circa 2000 vote against Prop. 1. As much as you'd like to, there's no taking that back now.

d.p., a little advice, if you've built yourself a mound of your own bullshit, the first thing you do is stop piling on. But as I said about you, once a bullshit artist, always a bullshit artist.
79
d.p. @75 about me: you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, have no interest in learning, and are a raging asshole to boot.

d.p., I have to tell you, I'm honored to be the target of such frothing, vein-popping hatred coming from you. To paraphrase FDR, I welcome your hatred.

A little more friendly advice, though. These anger issues ultimately aren't good for you, or your health. I dunno. Have you considered getting laid?
80
In all seriousness, though, the thing I've learned about local transportation issues is that, if your foes have to stretch the truth beyond all recognition, that's a tacit admission that they realize they're standing on weak ground. It's a show of weakness.

That's what came to mind when I read this from d.p. @75 in response to me: your magical-thinking-based New York-level rail ridership in Fife and your skyscrapers housing millions of "climate refugees" and your inevitable ST4 through ST8 and all your other rancid bullshit.

Nobody's claiming Fife is going to be the next Manhattan. I'm not even necessarily claiming it's such a great station choice. But even if it were a bad station choice, it's not like it could be such a disaster as to drag down the Tacoma extension. Sound Transit has already made a number of questionable station choices with its line that's up and running right now, and yet despite all that, it's a roaring success. Besides, the Tacoma extension in ST3 isn't such a radical geographic reach beyond what's already planned with ST2. (Oh sorry, I think I'm touching on another one of d.p.'s conceits.)

Likewise, who the heck is looking at the need for never-ending Sound Transit ballot measures through the rest of the century? Sure, there is funding in ST3 to plan for an ST4, and ST3 sets up an ST4, or even a Seattle-only measure, quite nicely. But all of us supporting ST3 are looking at it as the heavy lift that stands on its own right. Once ST3 is in motion, the natural add-ons in ST4 become a much lighter lift.
81
.

The NORTHSHORE would receive NO NEW SERVICE at all from ST3.

.

ST3 DOES NOT PROVIDE the much-needed LIGHT RAIL arterial along 405.

.
82
conib, so should every one of us only vote up or down on a mass transit measure based on whether it's going to directly serve our neighborhood? By that standard, maybe we can replace this thing called representative democracy with a web of transactional relationships delivered by Amazon.

I am curious, though. What do you mean when you say "Northshore"?

BTW, the folks on Seattle Transit Blog were sharing some fond memories today of our friend d.p. and his having been banned. My favorite:
d.p. was lacking in facts.

Well, at least that makes d.p. fit right in with his fellow anti-mass-transit travelers.
83
.

ST3 is DECEPTIVE -- it CLAIMS that it would provide NEW bus rapid transit along 405 and SR-522 -- BUT bus rapid transit along 405 and SR-522 ALREADY EXISTS.

.
84
Ha! Thanks, Cressona, I didn't even realize I was still a target of pointless slander from the STB peanut gallery!

The apparently-still-butthurt foamer named Jim is literally unable to distinguish need-addressing mass transportation from a 2000-mile Amtrak sightseeing corridor that serves 75 people a day and siphons massive amounts of money from worthwhile transportation endeavors by the very same beleaguered agency. He is allergic to reality, and wouldn't be able to identify a fact if it snuck up and bit him on the nose.

Come to think of it, you two would get along swell.

85
p.s. Perhaps you should compare total Link ridership to, say, that on the Canada Line (built for roughly the cost of U-Link alone) before declaring Link a rip-roaring runaway success.

More people still head downtown from Capitol Hill on buses than they do on the train. What does that say about ST's station-placement acumen and access paradigms, much less its ridership predictions? (Hint: those are as-yet far from being met.)

I get that most of the U-Link self-fellating has been about rearranging goalposts, and that the entire ST3 campaign is built on use-case-conflation, word-mincing, and carefully-crafted message marketing in order to posit extremely far-fetched outcomes as some kind of Overton default.

But maybe you should cool your jets a bit in attempting to claim ownership of "truth". It'll save you a ton of embarrassment when your glorious predictions land on their face.

You should also consider reviewing your own comments to figure out which of us resorts to namecalling and non-sequiturial ad hominems the moment his assumptions are subject to the slightest scrutiny. (Hint: it's you.)
86
.

Finish the light rail 405 arterial! Vote NO on ST3 Proposition 1.

.