I think with the First Hill Connector, ST is keeping its word to serve that community as well as connect thousands more around the streetcar project to the Light Rail stops in both Chinatown/ID and Capitol Hill. It would have been better if we knew this when approving Sound Move, but this agency is different and better than the one in 1996. We won’t see the same issues crop up when ST2 passes.

Tony, those people are called engineers. They are like doctors or scientists. You may not always like what they have to say – but using the George W Bush approach, and writing off the advice of professionals…that’s not a smart thing to do. ST took the lessons they learned in a very difficult geotech environment under Beacon Hill, and they applied it to an even more challenging situation with an even deeper First Hill station. Apparently, learning from experience is now a bad thing?

“Now it is possible that the state will authorize the creation of a new regional road building agency and transfer sound transit’s taxing authority to it, but the legislature would almost certainly require that the public approve the creation of such an entity at the ballot box, so we’d have plenty of opportunity to campaign against it then.”

Tony, continually fighting against bad roads-oriented measures (the inevitable result of the Stanton / Discovery Institute regional governance “reform” effort) doesn’t move us forward. Not an inch. They didn’t build the excellent multi-modal systems in Vancouver and Portland by fighting off bad things…

One step forward and two steps backwards does not equal progress.

I’m coming to the meetup this Friday. I’ll try to come up with some ideas but I won’t be surprised at all if any of you have already figured out the same thing. At least I’ll be the cheerleader.

First, the disillusion of sound transit does not in any way affect the employment status of anyone on the Sound Transit Board of Directors. Each of them is an elected official that will continue to be an elected official until they are voted out of office by their direct constituents.

A more legitimate concern is the Sound Transit staff, who would be out of a job if the agency were to dissolve. This is the same staff that convinced the board to cut out the First Hill Link stop.

Second, a failure of this measure does not necessarily mean the disillusion of Sound Transit. Though a failure might make such an eventuality more likely, it would take an act of the legislature to dissolve the agency.

Third, the failure of this measure, or even the disillusion of sound transit does not necessarily mean that the money will be spent on roads. Sound Transit is asking the voters to approve new taxes. If the measure fails, the money will be left in the hands of the tax payers, not in some transportation account that road warriors can tap. Now it is possible that the state will authorize the creation of a new regional road building agency and transfer sound transit’s taxing authority to it, but the legislature would almost certainly require that the public approve the creation of such an entity at the ballot box, so we’d have plenty of opportunity to campaign against it then.

If this measure fails, any number of things could happen, and one of those things is that a new better transit plan will be proposed. Recall that everyone on this blog warned that if Proposition 1 failed that we would never get another chance to build light rail in this region again. Of course, another possibility is that we will shift spending to road construction. It could go either way.

I am not saying I’m opposed to this plan, nor am I saying I’m for it, but the scare tactics only undermine our credibility.

I’d definitely like to help. I’m admittedly not as well-versed in transit as some… which leads me to an idea:

I think a Seattle Transit Wiki might be a useful resource. Specifically, STB readers and other interested parties would construct a living document that outlines Seattle transportation projects, issues, players, history, etc, ideally in a neutral point-of-view ala Wikipedia (I said ideally).

All the projects both past and present, funded and failed, with a different acronym for each, start to run together in my head. Think of how the average voter must approach this stuff. This would be a good resource for voters who are going to have a lot of questions about the pros-and-cons of the transit proposals they are voting on this fall.

Also, I think you’re more likely to get general internet linkage and google cred for a general resource wiki. There will be a time and place for “rail is awesome” sites, but I think the wiki could be a great start.

With Light Rail + Feeder service, you get all your local stops AND a rapid dedicated collector service. That’s getting your cake and eating it, too.

When’s the next KC Executive election? November?

Guess where Sims thinks the ST money would be better spent?

Hammond and Sims aren’t going to change their minds. Hammond is on orders from Gregoire, and Sims has just gone insane – which is why we’re going to replace him with Larry Phillips next year.

The campaign this year is going to need all the support it can get.

I am not exactly sure what the term “visionaries” is supposed to represent in the phrase above? It almost seems like it attacks the notion to have progressive ideas about expanding rail transit throughout our region, which is the primary focus of ST. Or is it supposed to mean that those ST board members who don’t vote for this measure ought to be put out to pasture? I am just not sure.

At any rate, we really can’t afford to let ST dissolve or be replaced with officials who will shift resources and funds to roads over transit.

I really hope this package passes in the fall.