I promise this will be the last Ron Sims post.

Ron Sims in 2002:

But Sims said such a large investment is needed to address “a growing sense of rage that nothing is being done.”

But Sims said yesterday there was no time to waste.

“You cannot tell people sitting in congestion that we’ll have another year of planning,” he said.

Voters know the issues, Sims said, and more delay would only serve to confirm suspicions about government’s inability to listen and act.

Ron Sims in 2004:

Sims does not have a vote on the three-county Regional Transportation Investment District that would officially adopt a package, but he has refused to stay on the sidelines.

“My goal is to lead,” Sims said. “I am fatigued over discussions.”

Sims latest 10-year proposal comes in at a total of $7.2 billion for King County projects, compared with $6.5 billion for a version he released in September. The investment district board has been considering a 15-year $9 billion package.

Ron Posthuma, assistant director of King County’s Department of Transportation, said Sims’ package is about 10 percent smaller than what the district had been discussing.

Gaining ground in Sims’ proposal this time around is Interstate 405, for which Sims now proposes to spend $2.085 billion, compared with $1.3 billion in his September proposal.

Sims would spend 53 percent on roads, 21 percent on carpool lanes and 26 percent on transit, including $1.33 billion to take light rail to Northgate and to Sea-Tac Airport.

Ron Sims in 2007:

Tragically, this plan continues the national policy of ignoring our impacts upon global warming. In a region known for our leadership efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, this plan will actually boost harmful carbon emissions.

Faced with catastrophic climate change, we need to have courage in our convictions, in our leadership and in our transportation solutions. We must question the environmental implications of our actions.

We need to refocus on bold solutions that offer immediate relief and a better tomorrow — future generations deserve no less.

Until we have real transportation solutions, I’m a “no” vote

Good thing we have “principled” and consistent leaders!

Update: As Josh Feit pointsRon Sims is likely not pro-rail. He is pro-bus, especially Bus Rapid Transit.

7 Replies to “Last Ron Sims Post”

  1. Tragically, this “plan” continues the “national policy” of “ignoring” our “impacts” upon “global warming”. In a region known for our “leadership efforts” to reduce “greenhouse gases,” this “plan” will actually boost “harmful” “carbon emissions.”

    Faced with “catastrophic” “climate change,” we need to have “courage” in our “convictions,” in our “leadership” and in our “transportation solutions.” We must “question” the “environmental implications” of our “actions.”

    We need to “refocus” on “bold” solutions that offer immediate “relief” and a “better” tomorrow — future generations “deserve” no less.

    Until we have “real” transportation “solutions,” I’m a “no” vote

  2. Jason, Why don’t you come up with a substantive argument rather than insulting punctuation?

    Sims called himself principled…

  3. One thing I have never understood about BRT being proposed in this region is the lack of available lanes for doing so. BRT, in other areas, relies on dedicated lanes to be truly effective otherwise you’re just another long box in traffic…

  4. Yes, michael, to build BRT that’s competitive with light rail in ridership and travel times, we’d have to build the same new right of way we are for light rail – making it cost just as much. Of course, then all the things that make rail more attractive than BRT (longer trains, lower operating costs, longer lasting equipment, better standards) make LRT better than BRT. That’s why all these cities all over the world choose LRT!

Comments are closed.