It’s possible that I don’t fully understand the implications of the plan changing as well.

Send a mail to seattletransitblog@gmail.com if you want to talk about blogging.

ben s, the information I’m talking about is coming from the Seattle Times not from STB… Unless, you’ve heard about plans to go to Lynnwood and to Federal Way?

I know you guys are well connected, but the thing is I pay pretty close attention to this stuff as well. Ideally, by reading all these blogs I should be just as informed of the current political climate as the bloggers here, right?

Anyway, one of my post earlier in this thread was some criticism of ST and STB that I want to follow-up on.

Toward ST: the board meeting minutes are impossible to find since the links are apparently never updated. The powerpoints they show to the board are hard to locate and often we only see them when the Times gets them. Finally, apparently there are backroom deals going on secure Snohomish and South KC board member votes that won’t have much public review to discuss the trade-offs. This will be used by anti-rail folks. However, their board meetings are streamable from their site which is awesome.

(Don’t get me wrong, Sound Transit is a great organization.)

Toward STB: board meetings are rarely discussed here, and the most meat and potatoes issue about ST 2.1 (the extents of its rail) are maybe in the process of being modified and this post didn’t really address how important that is or ponder about the trade-offs that must take place. First, I think good reporting requires enough context to direct readers to what’s important (and the Times article didn’t). Second, there are some very smart people here (ben s, you are one) that would have insightful things to say whether any compromise is smart or not. Personally, I’m just curious about the details of this compromise and whether it’s politically realistic — and I hate being uninformed. :/

It’s kind of odd to me that things come out of left field while STB and Orphan Road posts don’t note the significance. I’m wondering, is this already a known alternative or do people just not care as much about the details until the ST board approves a plan?

(And definitely don’t get me wrong, STB is a great blog!) :)

When I first read that in the Times, I simply thought it was bad reporting and that STB and Orphan Road (and the great Carless in Seattle) would have the real scoop. It’s always weird to me when the Times gets transit info before the transit blogs do.

So, *sigh*, maybe ignore the rest of my post. But aren’t you, Ben, as an ST junkie, wondering why you’re hearing about this just five weeks before the board must vote to go to ballot? Aren’t you concerned that a modification to the current plans will force the measure to be delayed until 2010?

Anyway, to put my criticism in context: if I felt like STB needed or wanted another co-blogger I’d apply* and help — so this isn’t just empty criticism. It’s just feedback :)

And Ben, don’t worry: I’m calm! I’ll try to come to a meet up in July so you realize I’m not crazy.

* I’m very cognizant that I ask a lot of questions and write pretty excitedly, so I guess I wouldn’t be taken very seriously.

I understand new buses and drivers are expensive, but COME ON.

While it does push out ST3 slightly (maybe — if federal funding for mass transit booms in the next 8 years it could change a lot of the rules), it also gives North King more money in the future to work with… Unless Snohomish is going to lend North King the money to build toward Lynnwood, which we’ll owe back for ST3.

Net benefit, though, is that the line is bigger and ST3 will have to worry less about obvious stuff — “obvious” being completing the entire ST2 map.

That said, going to Lynnwood means Shoreline (finally) gets some benefit from ST, so maybe it’s a wash, voter-wise.

Granted, I’d love for this option to happen but why weren’t we discussing this when the plans initially rolled out?

And I state that it hasn’t been on anyone’s radar because STB and Orphan Road have never mentioned this possibility until yesterday and today, respectively. I don’t see where that money would come from without cutting something out, which is fine.

Also, note that the plan’s timeline could change from 12 years to a range of 12-20 years, obviously to be determined by ST engineers. Meaning that this “new” plan may go North to Lynnwood and may go South to Federal Way and may require other service options to be removed and may take 15 or 20 or 12 years and may pass the ST board. Nothing mentioned in the article is concrete regarding this new, hybrid plan. I’m wondering why it’s not concrete.

Some obvious options are:

* Snohomish and maybe North King asked ST to work up a plan behind the scenes

* Snohomish hasn’t gone to ST yet but is trying to get something happening on the board behind the scenes, so the board as a whole will ask ST to work up a plan

* This plan is on the table (behind the scenes, again), but will be put to ballot in 2010

* Snohomish is leaking to the press to put pressure on the board for this to be added to the 2008 plan

* The Times has their information wrong

* In the interest of speculating about Lynnwood, the reporter also included speculation about Federal Way which I don’t think is very likely to happen

But if there is a new plan, hybrid or not, there is very, very little time to develop the reports and information necessary for the board to vote on it by July 24. Again, I would love for rail to extend north and south as far as possible even to the exclusion of ST Express improvements, but this information is coming out of left field and I wonder if it will have a significant impact on whether we’re going to the ballot in 2008 or not.

Well, it’s certainly been on mine. After building through Seattle, extending north and south at the ends of the line would appear to be so obvious, by comparison to the previous task, so easy, and so attractive to commuters from those areas (because they’re driving further than the people close in) that I always assumed it would be the logical next step.

And I would certainly hope ST has been studying those future routes, so that what they build today doesn’t end up being five miles from what they would like to build tomorrow. I don’t expect them to be sticking surveyer’s stakes in the ground and calling out property parcel numbers, but they should have a rough idea of demographics, contour lines, and how the process can be kicked into gear when the time comes.

Compared with boring under Beacon Hill, how hard can this be?

See also: trial balloons.